Walking down 7th Avenue in Park Slope this weekend, I passed a local CD store. I caught something out of the corner of my eyes. It was a white board, with sloppy hand writing, announcing "New this week."
Wait.
Did...that...sign...say...the...Raconteurs?
Hell and yes.
I turned around and walked in. This is notable for several reasons, including the fact that in the three years I've lived literally 200 feet from this store, I've never been inside. Never. In that time I've downloaded an awful lot of music. I've picked up the occasional CD at some corporate giant or another. I've installed software on my computer that allows me to rip audio out of YouTube videos, convert that file to MP4, and throw it on my iPod. I've driven 400 miles to see The White Stripes, driven home that night, waited two nights, and taken the subway four stops to see them again.
In other words, I listen to my share of music, and am not afraid to make an effort to do so.
I have not, however, walked 200 feet and supported my local indie music shop by exchanging cash for merchandise.
So, walking through the door, it felt sort of like 1995. I was back in college. There was no advanced press on one of my favorite bands. There was no "leaked" single available online. There was no badly recorded video on YouTube. All I needed was a t-shirt that hadn't been laundered in 3 weeks, an unread text book, and four minutes to get to class.
So there I stood. Just me and the owner of the store.
"Did I read your sign right? I thought the Raconteurs' album was scheduled to come out this summer?"
"Dude, you're the 500th person to say that this weekend. I didn't know it was coming out either. But it's really, really good."
As it turns out, that was sort of the point of the sneaky release. A trip to their MySpace page revealed this:
"With this release, The Raconteurs are forgoing the usual months of lead time for press and radio set up, as well as forgoing the all important "first week sales". We wanted to explore the idea of releasing an album everywhere at once and THEN marketing and promoting it thereafter. The Raconteurs would rather this release not be defined by it's first weeks sales, pre-release promotion, or by someone defining it FOR YOU before you get to hear it.
Another purpose was to also allow people to have their own choice as to exactly which format they would like to hear the album in IMMEDIATELY, rather than having to wait for their favorite format to become available. The band are also not releasing any version of this record that contains bonus tracks. Musically this album will be the same as the band created it no matter what format it is purchased in."
And you know what? I haven't been this excited by a music purchase since before I had an iPod.
(By the way: the store owner was roght. The album is great. I strongly encourage you to skip downloading the single, bypass the huge neon sign of the corporate retailer near you, and go hand your locally owned CD store an extra $2 above chain store prices for the disc. I think the whole process actually made the CD sound even better.)
Last Sunday, Doris Lessing won the Nobel Prize for Literature. In her acceptance lecture, she speaks a great deal about waste: the wasted talent of children who come of age in ignorance and poverty, the wasted books in the underutilized libraries belonging to the privileged class, and the wasted time people are inclined to spend dallying on the Internet.
Lessing does not trust the Internet. She does not like it. She points to the Internet not as a notable advancement in technology; but rather a source of infinite distraction, something that softens the mind and obscures the path to true knowledge and intelligence.
Lessing laments how a collective dependency on technology and all its marvels has replaced a respect and love of books and education. She wants to know why this has been blithely accepted when we should all be questioning what the impacts are of such a shift:
"We never once stopped to ask, How are we, our minds, going to change with the new internet, which has seduced a whole generation into its inanities so that even quite reasonable people will confess that once they are hooked, it is hard to cut free"
The notion that the Internet is detrimental to the advancement of humanity seems dramatic, but it is not implausible.
It is is hard not to believe that the Internet facilitates laziness. Innumerable processes (e.g., reading a newspaper, purchasing a gift, writing a letter) become infinitely easier when done online. Convenience to the degree that we've become accustomed is a bit frightening. We are lazy, and generations after ours will probably be even lazier.
Similarly, it makes sense that laziness breeds ignorance. After all, it is human nature to take for granted that which one doesn't work to achieve. If all knowledge no longer require any effort to obtain, it will shortly lose value to us. Before long, we will be back in the Dark Ages.
Or will we? Didn't laziness and sloth exist before the advent of the Internet?
Perhaps Lessing is pointing to something different than mere laziness: an inability to grasp the sacrifice made when indulging in the seductive conveniences of technology.
I recently spent an evening at the Carlyle Hotel, watching Woody Allen playing his clarinet in a jazz band. Both the performance and the setting conjured an image of classic New York. But somewhat muddling this romantic setting was the conspicuous flash of digital cameras persisting through the entire performance. Even more offensive, I thought, were the people in front of me with their arms raised overhead, filming the performance on their iPhones.
I was not only irritated, but also felt pity towards those with the compulsion to record the event taking place instead of simply enjoying it. It was as though they had missed the point entirely: can't anyone watch Woody Allen on film any time they want? When you're sitting in a bar five feet away from him, why would you have a camera held up to your eye the whole time?
To Lessing's point, and my own, I think her speech serves as a reminder that it is a pity to dilute the richness of life by an over-reliance on technology.
Staying in touch with family members can be an incredibly hard task especially when you have an unfathomable large family like mine. Thankfully, my family has a website.
On here we pretty much do everything...upload pictures of the new babies, play MP3 of the latest family artist's band, message boards ranging from what happened on desperate housewives to Heather's new job, recipes, videos, pretty much anything you could possibly think of, we do.
The best part about this is the ability to see my cousins whom I haven't met yet and don't know when I will get meet, and of course the message boards. These provide entertainment for anyone I have ever met. Watching the succession of my aunts trying to decipher "ROFL" and "LMAO" is quite hilarious.
Anytime that anyone posts new materials an email is sent to all members. There is a web administrator who adds members to the group and has creative control over the website's design.
This has been a great way to keep in touch and is easy to set up. Visit www.easysite.com for more details.
The Internet has long been a haven for those with anti-establishment leanings. One of the web's most secretive new developments combines this counter-culture spirit with the current social-networking obsession. The site nicknamed "Cheatster" takes on the project of distributing information for the sole purpose of connecting cheaters.
Cheatster is difficult to describe because it is so elusive. Currently, it operates on a limited invite-only basis. An ever-changing IP address and anti-search engine strategy allow it to live online almost completely under the radar. Worldwide there are fewer than 1,500 users; but despite its complete lack of advertising and relative unavailability it is safe to say that it is becoming an increasingly sought-out commodity. Thus far, Cheatster has enabled hundreds of (mostly college) students to fake their way through take-home exams, term papers, presentations, and outlines covering topics on almost every subject in an undergraduate coursebook. Conveniently, the site includes an unusually accurate translating function, thus encouraging international cheating.
Unsurprisingly, a backlash from academia is arising. Professor Hellmut Spangenberg of the University of Frankfurt, Germany is one of the most outspoken opponents of the site, calling Cheatster an 'enemy of higher learning'. Other critics have written off the site's body of 'expert-submitted' essays and academic papers as nothing but a "cornucopia of mediocrity".
Despite the alleged mediocrity of the site's body of knowledge, Cheaster aficionados are reportedly faking their way to A's world-wide and basking in the site's ingeniously secretive status.
Before I am accused I will admit I am a biased person. When it comes to the WGA's 2007 writers strike I am 100% in support of the WGA, and more importantly in support of all my friends who are writers*. I am also biased because I hope to one day be a part of the WGA, and this may affect my future earnings.
I'm not going to bore you with my poorly worded 2nd hand synopsis of what is happening and why, because there is a video (with graphs) you can watch here:
How does this affect you? Ah, I am so glad you asked! You see this is the week you are going to notice more reruns than usual. Yep, the well is drying up and fast. Not only is this affecting your TV guide schedules but also I am hearing the first grumbles of fallout repercussions. People are being laid off at networks. And not people on shows, or around, we are talking the people in the offices.
So now people are out of work, and on top of that they are bored. What can we do?
Well its not yet that time of year, and we certainly aren't covered in paint, still, we are surrounded by Easter Eggs (of the digital sort). Extend the concept of hiding delicious goodies to the online world and we have digital Easter Eggs: a hidden form of interactive media.
Everyone knows that DVDs are often programmed with Easter Eggs, right? Encoded on the disk you may be lucky enough to find special hidden areas of otherwise suppressed material (such as the 1st Lord of the Rings DVDs - containing exclusive MTV behind-the-scenes footage). Only by clicking on a hidden button will you have access to the information. Anyway, websites have been getting in on the game for a while now too.
Numerous sites and particularly web applications have "hidden" areas, messages or tricks for users to find. Some simply act as prompts for more information. Here are a few examples:
NYTimes.com - double clicking on any word (non-hyperlinked) will prompt a global dictionary and provide the details of that word.
Facebook Applications - find hidden tools that allow for unique display of content or find hidden text at the bottom of the Friends pages reading "Only the craftiest of quails survive hunting season".
Google Earth - discover the flight simulator within Google Earth. To access it for the first time, hit CTRL+Alt+A in Windows or Command+Option+A on the Mac.
This Easter Egg content is usually not the main site feature, however, it effectively creates a connection with the user that is immeasurable. Building a site with "stickiness" and exclusivity, two attributes any site owner wishes she/he can claim, is perhaps the largest challenge in the web world. I call for more Easter Eggs. I call for Egg-mania.
Can anyone find the Easter egg on this page?? Happy hunting...
I saw The Darjeeling Limited this weekend. I liked it; I mean I like Wes Andersen movies. Out of fear of sounding uncool, and repeating The New York Times, I won't go into all my feelings about the movie. Wes Anderson is a great director, and it is right to give him thanks and praise.
After the movie, I downloaded Hotel Chevalier, part 1 of The Darjeeling Limited. It's a short that follows one of the main characters from Darjeeling days (or maybe weeks) before part 2 takes place. It isn't necessary to see it to understand the full length movie, though there are a few callbacks, mostly it just gives you a glimpse at a character that is only mentioned in part 2.
So why? Why is there a Hotel Chevalier? What does it give the audience?
Well, one thing it gives is a little Nudatalie Portman. But why have a 13 minute- short available for FREE download on iTunes? What purpose does that serve, when it could have easily been shown before the film or as a DVD bonus?
What's the deal?
Radiohead is offering their entire album on their website and allowing audiences to pay what they want for it. It's creating a lot of buzz because essentially they have cut out the middleman (their record label). About a third of albums were downloaded for free, but I have heard reports that most people are willing to pay $5-$8. And even though it's a lot cheaper than buying an album in stores, the band is going to see a lot more profit from it. So, that makes sense, it's mutually beneficial.
And maybe it's about reaching an audience more directly. Maybe it's about building brand/band/man loyalty. Maybe it's a genius marketing ploy.
Here is what I know--it's working. They are reaching people who won't pay to see a 13-minute movie with Jason Schwartzman and Natalie Portman or buy the latest Radiohead album, but they would see/hear it for free. And hopefully it will leave them wanting more. Which means more tickets sales for concerts, and theater tickets and DVD sales of other films. So yeah, it is Brand Loyalty for them, and for me it's more free stuff.
I am sure we're about to see a lot of scared parents on the Today's show trying to put restrictions on "addictive" games.
I do not hold the game responsible. Every other year or so we hear about a football player in Florida who dies of heat exhaustion. It's another sports related death! People just need to be more careful when gaming for days on end in Internet Cafes with hundreds of other likeminded competitors.
Here are three ideas I have come up with to make marathon gaming safer:
Fluids! Provide cold water before, during and after games in unlimited quantities.
For heaven's sake, take a break. An 8 minute break every 60 minutes can save your sight and possibly a life.
Find a buddy. Have a buddy check in on you periodically. They will notice if something strange is going, and possibly give helpful tips on difficult levels.
I am not in the minority when I let you know that I stalk guys I am romantically interested in on the Internet. It's a pretty common practice, and most people will admit to it.
I Google them, I seek them out on facebook and myspace, and once I find them I stalk all of their friends or associates and especially their exes...if I can figure out who they are.
If someone is IN a relationship it's pretty easy to figure it out. Their significant other is probably number 1 in the top friends on myspace, facebook will even link to the mates profile. If they blog then chances are so does their honey and you can find this on the blogroll. I mean you aren't in a relationship with someone if you don't have a hyperlink to prove it.
So what happens when things turn sour, feelings fade, and your status is suddenly listed as single at 1:24pm? Do you delete your friendship, and every post about or from the ex, then unlink them from your life?
I am currently stalking someone who has an ex link. I am not sure what it means. It could mean it was amicable split; they have remained friends, and still care about one another's lives. But more realistically they just don't want to seem petty to all their mutual friends.
And then there are the nasty break ups. These are more fun to witness. It's when people write nasty things about one another and explain in great detail what the other person did to ruin their life and why you should un-friend them!
I have never had an online break up so I am not sure how I would handle it. But I am more than interested to hear your horror stories. Please, share details that are awkwardly intimate with me/the rest of the Internet.
One of my favorite guilty pleasures online is scouring the section of craigslist.org called Missed Connections
Even the most mundane postings are, in my opinion, riveting.
Part of the appeal of Missed Connections is the romantic notion that you might be reconnected with someone you've seen in passing on a city street or random subway car, if they fatefully happen to be looking at the right site on the right day. While I'm all in favor of this romance, I am a bit dubious about the percentage of Missed Connections postings that have actually resulted in a happy union between strangers (though the site is currently compiling Missed Connections success stories, possibly for a documentary). But regardless of how effective it is in coupling people off, Missed Connections remains a fascinating phenomenon for multiple reasons:
In a city distinctively adorned with status symbols and frequently separated by race/class, Missed Connections transcends the boundaries of socio-economic background, sexual orientation, and even age. There are postings from every corner of every borough, some describing well-groomed Park Avenue beauties, some about Williamsburg hipsters, some written by jaded middle-aged people, some from wide-eyed twenty year olds, gay people, straight people, etc. It's just as much a melting pot as the city itself is.
It's a collective art project: some of the postings are as elegantly crafted as a haiku or limerick. It's obvious that the authors put effort into their creations with the knowledge that the general public has access to their words, not just the object of their affection. It is a true forum for self-expression instead of just an online bathroom wall to be anonymously scrawled on.
Many postings are written by men and women who are utterly hopeless that their crush will ever read their piece, or by people who have no intention of ever confronting their crushes (the "You're my married neighbor, so this would never work" or "I am your boss so this would be entirely inappropriate" category) but who are still desperate to spill their guts. So in this sense, it is a public diary where the anonymity of the Internet allows people to profess their feelings of tenderness for strangers, co-workers, ex-wives, etc. In this way, Missed Connections is a receptacle of emotion that probably helps to keep scores of edgy, repressed New Yorkers more psychologically fit than they might otherwise be. It's like therapy, but free.
In a roundabout way, it promotes togetherness: although both the process of viewing Missed Connections and creating a Missed Connections post are completely anonymous, its function is to lessen the anonymity both of the city and of the Internet itself. Many popular so-called 'social-networking' sites encourage users to bask in the anonymity of the Internet (think about how easy it is to stalk people on MySpace or Facebook from the comfort of your own home). Missed Connections does the opposite by encouraging users to leave the comfort of online interactions and venture back into the real world.
I'm considering starting to submit daily Missed Connections posts about people I encounter on my way to work. They would be more friendly than lovelorn, I think---while I don't routinely fall in love on the subway, I am a careful observer of other people's clothing and choice of reading material. Something along the lines of "This morning on the Q train. You: bespectacled man reading Kafka. Me: brunette in yellow blouse. I just wanted you to know I liked your bowtie". It might be a nice way to give back to a website that has provided me with countless hours of entertainment.
I should have perhaps written this post a bit earlier. A few months ago, while explaining some basic strategies of good web design such as trying to keep the most important information as few clicks from the homepage as possible, out of my mouth came a new term: "Click Laziness".
I meant to write about this term earlier, but I think I can still lay claim to it. A Google search shows that the term has been used only in a few web forums. There are no book titles with the name, no movies or animations.
So there, I'm piking my flag into the soft soil of eLanguage. May it be official that Justin R. Buchbinder, senior content strategist and lead copywriter of Ruder Finn Interactive, has claimed creation of the term "Click Laziness" and all other uses (including, but not limited to, "Click Lazy" "Clicking Laze", etc.)
Now - what is Click Laziness? I'm not going to say it speaks directly to the tried and true three-click rule. I think it's more along the lines of a personal aversion to clicking patterns that you are so used to performing. I do NOT think that Click Laziness has to do with clicking through a new site. So long as the copy and design and structure make sense and let you know where you're going, Click Laziness does not apply.
Click Laziness applies to the instances when we're doing something we've grown accustomed to doing ad nauseum. This can include filling in near-identical web forms (ordering tickets, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer merchandise). It can also occur when treading a familiar route on a website to find information we found once before. It might take place in the office, when you'd rather run a 10-minute mile through a bad part of town than click to the 15th level of your current client folder directory to pull out an SOW.
Now - is there an answer to Click Laziness? Maybe not. I think it's more a part of nature than it is a problem we can solve; Just like Restless Leg Syndrome (sorry Pharma! Sometimes legs like to bounce a bit!) We get lazy sometimes. We might go to the gym five days a week, but wouldn't we just love our roommate to take out the pizza boxes? (All those stairs to the garbage!) Same thing here.
So we get click lazy. Instead of visiting a site, and copy-pasting its URL into an email, instead we call them and tell them to Google it. Or we abandon a website with a great deal just because we can't begin to fill out our billing and mailing addresses. So what's the solution to Click Laziness? Maybe it's just an intern, or someone close enough to your office that you can bark a command for them to go to a site and copy some text for you. Other than that, I'm out of ideas.
I feel like Click Laziness doesn't apply only to me and a few people on Mac message boards. Rather, I think we all suffer from this condition, but just simply don't have a name for it. Do you find a similar Click Laziness in you? I bet you do. I'd ask you to leave a comment, but I really don't have the energy to approve it on our backend management system.
I am a dog person. No, I am more than a dog person, I am person who is obsessed with dogs. Much like women who experience baby fever, I have a dogological clock that is ticking inside of me.
I crave puppies. Sometimes I wake up in the morning and the first thing I think is, "I need a dog, oh God, I need one!" I stop on the street and pet almost any dog with a patient owner. I talk to them when I see them. When my coworker brings his dog, Virgil, into the office I spend at least 10% of my day walking by and waving at the dog or on my knees rubbing his puppy belly.
Oh it gets worse too. I look up puppy images during my free time, and sometime when I am really busy. Obviously I have an RSS feed from Cute Overload! :) (that smiley is part of the Official Name of that site). I send links of my favorite puppy pics in e-mails and AIM conversation...and I know what you are thinking, and YES that dog does look like Jake Gyllenhaal!!!
This is a big part of who I am and what I do. I love puppies! In high school I even wrote a song called "I love puppies" with my best friend, it was heavy metal, I am 100% serious.
So I think I have fully illustrated my love of puppies now. So you can understand how excited I was when I found out you can rent dogs, right here in NYC.
FLEXPETZ offers a solution for dog lovers who are unable to commit all their love and attention to a dog full-time by granting FLEXPETZ members access to a dog of their choice for a few hours, up to a few days. And not just here in NYC, "your FLEXPETZ membership is valid at any FLEXPETZ location. Just imagine visiting New York, Chicago, Paris or London and strolling through the city and parks with a FLEXPETZ dog!"
If I ever walk along the streets of Paris how could it be without a dog?
It sounds like a great idea. They take rescued dogs and match them up with lonely city dwellers who are looking for puppy love. They do not euthanize old or ill dogs, which is sweet. It's a mutually beneficial service.
But in the back of my mind a little, attention starved, voice keeps saying, "It'll never be yours." "Shh," I say, "it doesn't matter. I just want companionship." "Oh, who do you think you're kidding?" the little voice replies. "You know the thought of that puppy's paws all over someone else would eat away at you. You want that puppy all to yourself. Don't deny it!" I break down, "Ok, ok! You are right! I want a puppy that is all my own. A puppy I can wake up with in the morning, and I puppy I come home to a night. I could never share my love, and I deserve a dog that won't share his."
It's dramatic I know, but it's a moral issue. I couldn't parade around town in a fake pet/owner relationship.
Once again, viral has made headlines! What's the next viral sensation? More soda antics? Did Alanis do another remix? Did those Cebu prisoners learn the dance moves to Footloose?
No! This time we owe our thanks to none other than Miss South Carolina 2007. She was asked an intriguing question: Why can't 1/5 of Americans point out the United States on a world map?
The answer COULD have been about:
No Child Left Behind.
Or the focus on math and science, therefore not on geography and history.
Or maybe it could have been about the rise of pop culture uselessness and a wildly decreasing attention span.
Or about our US-centric world where you don't need to know where your country is on a map.
Instead her answer had something to do with Iraq, Asian countries, and the sad reality that many "U.S. Americans" don't have maps.
Counting all versions, we're already well beyond 1 million views in a span of one day. And, thanks to my emailing, we'll reach 2 mill by quittin' time.
I'm sure there will be a Miss South Carolina remix before the week is out. Maybe they'll even juxtapose what she said to one of George W. Bush's speeches on education. The sky's the limit, and you know that the Internets will find the rocket shoes to get soaring.
Quick, corporations! Contact Miss America and get rights to this video. It would be excellent for:
moveon.org (anti- No Child)
Kaplan study aids
Revlon brown hair dye
McDonalds (they just buy viral anyway, I'm sure they'll figure out how to use it.)
So what makes this viral? Humor, of course, that's key. But there's more - the unbelievability factor. Is it really possible that someone could say something we wouldn't even believe coming from Elle Woods in Legally Blonde?
Also there's Mario Lopez, formerly known as A.C. Slater from TV's Saved by the Bell. I'm pretty sure Lopez can make anything viral. He just has that sort of power.
In a world of viral video where no movie or celebrity or old TV show is safe, I'm surprised it took someone so long to get the idea for an interesting new movie. Thank heavens, the time where User Generated Media takes the spotlight is at hand! Behold Be Kind, Rewind - the new movie directed by Michel Gondry.
Be Kind, Rewind stars Mos Def as the owner of an old-fashioned VHS video store, and Jack Black as his mysteriously magnetized friend. One day Jack enters the store and somehow erases the information on every video in the store.
Onoes! What are we going to do? Won't Mos Def have to close the store down and hit the streets in search of a new job or a lucrative multi-million dollar rapping career? No, not quite. Jack Black comes up with a brilliant idea: all they have to do is refilm all the movies! And that is exactly what they do. With nothing but a video camera and some cheap costumes, they begin to remake everything from Ghostbusters to Driving Miss Daisy.
Just watching the trailer, it becomes obvious what Gondry's vision of User Generated Media is: he seems to be very much for it. The video store patrons become enamored of the new movies, and begin demanding them. The trailer shows what seems to be a future fame for the two main characters.
But not all User Generated Media gives way to happy-slappy comedy. JJ Abrams, Producer of Lost, is utilizing UGM for a far more disturbing purpose: a horror film. The movie currently titled "1-18-08" and also known as "Cloverfield" MIGHT be a monster movie (no one's sure yet - it could be a disaster). What we do know is that the majority of the movie will be delivered in video camera, camera phone, and webcam footage. That's right - an attack on New York City where the citizens let you know what's happening as they face the horror. Check out the trailer for "1-18-08"
I'm excited about these new User Generated Media-focused and -lensed films. It seems to be opening up the craft to all new possibilities. Who knows what other inventive stories will come from this?
Basically the article is about these "posthumans" who, through advances in technology, could build computers with the processing technology that would be stronger than all the brains in the world and they would create virtual worlds with virtual people who have virtual nervous systems. They explain that it's like The Matrix except no Keanu, so it might be better or worse depending on which pill you would choose.
So like I said, reading it and thinking about is a little unsettling, but then that turned to annoyance. If they are projecting that we'll have this "computing power" by the middle of the century then why the hell aren't things cooler right now? I mean if we are on the verge of virtual life why does my computer always forget the printer settings? Or why is my mailbox always over the size limit no matter what I delete?
So I have a message for all you smart people out there thinking of this stuff. Forget about making a cool virtual world, make this one better! I want vending machines that take debit cards, because I don't think that is too much to ask. Let's figure out a way to get rid of batteries and send energy through the air to my Blackberry and iPod. Oh I know, let's make moving sidewalks for everywhere, not just theme parks and airports.
I am throwing out gold here people. Hop to it! No more coins! No more batteries! No more walking! And then we can work on no more breathing.
I think you all know who I am, but, just in case - I'm Lindsay Lohan, and Justin totally let me take over his Blog today. Like my friend Paris says: that's hot.
Anyway, he told me to write about cool ways people are using marketing on Blogs. But that was SOOOOO snore-zo. I told him I'd do it, but I think I'll talk about my new movie, I Know Who Killed Me. I don't really know what it was about (I was very tired when making this movie. I came in late a lot, and people were always crashing into my car.) Anyway, it's out, so you should check it out! I say the F-Word in it a lot - and you can totally see that on some YouTube video that Justin won't let me link to.
Ugh. Justin's whining now. I can't stand this guy. All he does is talk about the Internet. "Lindsay! Write about that Jet Blue thing we talked about. Boo hoo. Wah Wah." How DO you people deal with him every single day?
FINE! Whatever. Okay, so he won't leave me alone until I talk about how Montgomery Burns of The Simpsonstook over Jet Blue CEODavid Neeleman's Blog. I don't really care either way. What I care about is finding out who's jeans I'm wearing today. There's stuff in these pockets that... yeah. Nevermind.
Who cares if a CEO did something "risky" like letting an old cartoon dude write his Blog for a month? Big deal that it's "edgy" and "crazy" and "totally wouldn't work with most companies"! That's not risky. Believe me, I know risky. Try downing a pint of SoCo and speeding away from the papparazzi at 4:30 in the morning. THAT's risky.
Jeez. He won't shut up! "Blah blah Lindsay, I can't believe I let you do this. My boss is going to kill me. Can't you talk about how smart it is to do risky things like that, especially in marketing? How trailblazing it is, and how it totally fits the branding of Jet Blue?"
I'm SO done! Where's my agent? Did I sign a contract for this crap? I'm out of here. Go see my movie.
Viral videos continue to amaze me to this day. Just the idea that any type of video, any type at all, could suddenly garner such attention, to the tune of millions of views, without a lick of advertising (and don't fool yourself, if you're advertising your viral, you're cheating).
But the viral video fairy has swooped by once more! After sprinkling her user-interest dust on:
I have to admit, when I first heard of the video's basic conceits - prisoners en masse, I feared for the worst. Maybe I can blame Gitmo and stories of prison abuse. But of course it doesn't matter what I blame, because the video is not the least bit offensive, and absolutely amazing.
The 1500 inmates, you see, are trained to perform the authentic Michael Jackson's "Thriller" dance. Complete with the beginning vignette where Michael and his girlfriend wander through the cemetary after seeing a horror movie starring Vincent Price.There is nothing like the visual of 1500 orange-clad men dancing and leering to one of my favorite Jacko numbers.
How popular is it, Justin? So popular! No, seriously, this version of the video was posted on July 17th and has already earned its weight in users with over three and a half million views. Exactly. Two weeks. Three point five million views.
So what is it that makes it viral?
For one, I see the "unbelieveable" aspect to play a role. Much like the online world couldn't believe that a bottle of diet soda would blow up from the mere introduction of a tiny piece of candy, I imagine they can't fathom the thought of 1500 prisoners being allowed out into the open air together, and then those prisoners getting together to do a spot-on rendition of a dance without breaking out into knife fights.
Two, we're dealing with an international pop favorite. Despite the social downfall of its creator, Thriller, and its accompanying zombie dance is still remembered fondly by many people in many generations. To this day you stand a chance of seeing a newly released movie where the actors are more than willing to lift their arms and teeter back and forth together.
Three, it's brilliant escapism. I mentioned Gitmo, and I stand by it. We hear so many horrendous things about prisons the world over, so isn't it wonderful to see a prison where the detainees are schooled in the finer art of crotch-grabbing and moonwalking?
Are there more reasons for its popularity? I'm sure, and I'd love to hear other opinions. But what I do know is that there is no advertising budget behind this video. It wasn't done to increase the popularity of the Cebu detention center. And it wasn't created to usher in a new type of product. And here it is, with three and a half million views.
So what to do? Maybe follow the McDonalds idea. Don't make your own video, buy someone else's! What company would benefit from this video? Maybe it will make a great advertisement for Michael Jackson's upcoming reunion tour.
Or, maybe, just reconsider viral. Realize the trends that are evident here, especially the art of impossibility:
Did Alanis REALLY just spoof fergie?
Did these guys REALLY write a rap for McNuggets?
Does Mentos REALLY make soda explode?
Does the Cebu detention facility REALLY make their inmates learn dance numbers?
In this confusing state, users then learn that, yes, it is all really, really true. So embrace the unbelievability, and craft yourself a really intriguing, funny, and impossible viral.
Or call the Cebu detention facility, and ask them if anyone beat you to the punch.
You know how some people have those bumper stickers that say "I stop for (blank)?" The blank being anything from school buses to democrats? I feel like I should have a similar type of sticker to stick on my head. This sticker would advertise:
I stop for Simpsons stuff
What kind of stuff? Mugs? Commercials? Crop circles? Sure! I don't discriminate, no matter what it is. If it's Simpsons, I'm paying attention.
So, as I was fast-forwarding through my DVR list, I came upon my favorite comically jaundiced family in a commercial, and hit the stop button. What was it? A commercial for a movie?
I almost lost it right there. What was Simpsonize Me? What sort of new, groundbreaking viral thing had these two geniuses launched? I ran to my computer (something website television commercials NEVER get me to do) and typed in the URL.
Getting to the website, I found my dream come true:
Upload your picture,
press a button,
answer a few questions and
the Simpsonizer would turn you into a Simpson!
I was in Simpson dork heaven! The yellow gods had smiled down on me, descended to earth, and given me the greatest gift this side of Prometheus' fire and some dude's sliced bread.
Of course this excitement had to die. And die it did. The Simpsonizer is a joke! I uploaded my photo and was told that "Simpsonizing takes time" and like hooey it did - I was waiting there for 582 seconds, wondering what on earth the Simpsonizer was doing.
I walked away for a snack, and came back to find still 300 seconds left. Fast forward to the final payoff - the near 600 seconds were over! It was time to see...
John Waters with gray hair?
To my dismay, the Simpsonizer was a piece of junk. All of those precious seconds had created a Simpson that looked nothing like the photo I uploaded. My Internet user anger inflamed, I immediately took to Google to see if anyone else was as downtrodden as I.
And I found plenty including:
"anyone want to link to a before/after photo? I haven't been able to get it to work?"
"It has coding errors all over the place"
"I'm trying to decide which is more annoying-- the fact that SIMPSONIZE ME NEVER WORKS, or the fact that it makes you sit for several minutes before it tells you that it's not going to work. Haven't they heard of beta testing before unleashing crap like this on the public? ... Simpsonize Me is definitely the WORST .. MARKETING GIMMICK .. EVER."
Ah - so it's not just me. While comforting to find my ire shared by other Simpsons nerds, I'm afraid I must give Burger King one of Stephen Colbert's famed "Wag of the Finger" for releasing an untested, uncapable piece of total trash before it was ready to go.
The problem is that they promised so high, and failed to deliver even the basest of rewarding user experiences. Perhaps that is a lesson to add to the viral textbook - don't write checks your viral can't keep!
Oh, as a final note, when I went to the Simpsonizer to grab a screenshot for this Blog of the ridiculous waiting time, I was instead presented with an even worse prompt: The Simpsonizer is down, because it can't handle it's incoming traffic.
So good for you, BK. You've gotten millions of hits to your site. That would be considered a viral success... except every one of those million visitors is leaving the experience embittered and jaded.
I felt like the king of the Internet today when I sent out a link to this Wired article that bashes Second Life, that 8-million-user-strong online world, as an errant fraud and a waste of corporate dollars.
But, no sooner had I sent it, that our Director of Client Services sent back an email with this Newsweek International article that says Second Life is a complete success! Worthy of all the praise it gets!
Well, this is the world, I suppose. Some people say one thing, others say something else. For example, Newsweek mentions that Second Life currently has 8 million residents. Man is that huge!
But then here comes Wired saying:
"
Many people make more than one avatar.
The number of avatars created by distinct individuals was closer to 4 million.
Of those, only about 1 million had logged on in the previous 30 days (the standard measure of Internet traffic), and barely a third of that total had bothered to drop by in the previous week.
Most of those who did were from Europe or Asia, leaving a little more than 100,000 Americans per week to be targeted by US marketers. "
Ouch! But then Newsweek talks about paraplegics being able to dance, and students being able to experience the life of a schizophrenic... Suddenly Second Life is a service and a blessing.
What do I know? Well, I have my own opinion to go by. And that's a simple one: I found Second Life to be boring beyond belief. Maybe it's my life-long love of video games, but the concept of a vast and never-ending world with no direct goals (aside from Maxis' The Sims) is a terribly depressing thing.
And, much like Wired pointed out, Second Life always seemed so empty. Seriously, read their article, you almost have to bat away the tumbleweeds as they bounce off the description of the empty Coke pavillion. I came to Second Life, wandered around for an hour, found nothing to do, flew for 20 minutes, found a casino, gambled away all my Linden dollars, and then inexplicably got myself stuck in a wall. When I finally liberated myself from my floral patterned jail, I left the casino, passed a few porn theaters, and finally aborted the game. I cancelled my cheap membership, and never returned to that mystical plain.
But, then again, that was just MY experience. The Newsweek article talks about test driving cars, visiting your aunt who lives in India in Second Life's "India", having sex with mermaids in the ocean, and making millions of dollars selling bits of pixels. I experienced none of these things, but some people must, right?
So - is Second Life awesome, or total crap? Maybe I'm not on either of those sides. It's great for those who find it great, and it's crap for those on the other side of the fence. You won't be seeing me on Second Life, but you wouldn't know that unless you were a member, too.
