The Entertainment Business From My Point Of View

Cancelled

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 19 Jan 2019 04:57:00 +0000

I'd like to thank everyone who has humored me during my journey of trying to spread some knowledge and wisdom to the world; one of the benefits to self publishing is that you don't really have to answer to anyone but yourself and the small circle you hold yourself accountable to (and possibly whoever you web hosting company is, but they'll host pretty much anyone). Obviously this dynamic changes the more you find yourself having to rely on others. Any time your personal opinion as expressed through your constitutionally protected free speech begins to affect the income of a person / corporate entity, you run the risk of finding yourself cancelled.

A friend of mine once said that the only way any progress happens in society is when those who need progress can affect the money. What he was saying is that progress only happens when those in power have a financial incentive to produce progress, whether that incentive be to create more wealth, or to protect the wealth they already have. I identify with his statement, however I believe it to be an oversimplification of the state of things to assume that financial resources are the only driving factor for individuals' actions. That's not to say that his idea was incorrect, but I believe that the currency that will motivate individual(s) to action will vary based upon what they cherish.

For many of us, monetary currency is a highly motivational factor. We'll get up early, go to bed late, deprive our families of the limited time they have with us and spend countless hours doing repetitive tasks that we have absolutely no passion for just to keep the income flowing. Obviously this isn't the only way to draw income, but it is the way a large percentage of the population does it. For a small minority of the population, income is drawn through passive sources such as investments and business ventures. For some of these entrepreneurs income is just a byproduct of power and influence. For these individuals / entities, loss of said power and influence will equate to a loss of income and its associated lifestyle. For these individuals, then, the currency they cherish is not monetary income, but instead their power and influence.

For an example of this, one need only look into any election campaign. I personally find it difficult to understand why anyone would be willing to part with millions of dollars to earn a public office with an embarrassing salary. This only makes sense if the power and influence of the office are of greater value to the incumbent than the income expenditures necessary to attain the office. I'll avoid speculating on what someone would do with that power and influence, but I assume that most of you reading this are an imaginative bunch so I probably don't need to dig up examples.

Whatever the currency in question, most people will take whatever actions necessary to protect / increase it. This becomes even more relevant in the entertainment industry where having influence can equal box office numbers, album sales and streams, and increase a personalities star power. It's no wonder, then, that people and entities tend to avoid bad publicity and associations like the plague. Just ask Kevin Hart, Paula Deen, Roseanne Barr, and the myriad other personalities who have experienced the wrath of cancel culture. Whether or not their cancellation was justified is not the issue at hand here, and as such I'll keep my personal opinions to myself. What is worth highlighting is the fact that their cancellations were not due to some high moral ethic being expressed by the entities responsible for their cancellation. There is always an agenda at the root of any cancellation. In some office building someone has to weigh and balance the cost of keeping a personality versus cancelling them. Usually that cost isn't just counted in dollars. Someone has to weigh the publicity, influence and financial cost of canceling versus not cancelling.

The purpose of this post wasn't to tell anyone how to feel about cancel culture, but just to educate someone, anyone that it exists, that it needs to be paid attention to, and that the more we see it utilized the less of an impact it will have. Do some people need to be cancelled? Certainly, but I also believe that it's important to remember that we all have some dirt that would call our character into question were it paraded before the judging eyes of the general public. This doesn't mean that everyone should get a pass, but it does mean that we should analyze the motives behind our actions. We should all have a chance to grow out of who we once were into who we are becoming. No one should be repeatedly chastised for actions that they have acknowledged, apologized for and moved past. At the same time, no one should get a pass for actions they can't acknowledge, apologize for and move past. You can't clean the dirt off until you get out of it.

All of that being said, I want to thank everyone who's been on this journey with me. I'll be shuttering this blog post for the forseeable future. The time and energy cost to me isn't worth the non-existent impact that I seem to be having within this particular outlet. All of the posts that have been published up to this point will remain available, but I will be redirecting the time and energy that has been directed to this medium to other ventures. Thanks everyone for reading and see you in the business.

Ugh... but tomorrow we diet!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 07 Jan 2019 10:18:00 +0000

Greetings and welcome to 2019 every one! This year's only 7 days in and already governments are shut down, R&B and rap stars are getting called out for past indiscretions and everyone's favorite fruit themed tech company is trying to explain why their products aren't selling. It looks like if nothing else, 2019 won't be boring. In last week's article, I encouraged everyone not to let the challenges get them down. I also acknowledged that for many people, the end of the year is a time to forget their inhibitions and do whatever feels right. Let me clarify, I did not, nor do I encourage this behavior, I simply acknowledge that it is a trend as the year wraps up and I recognize that trying to prevent it is in many cases an exercise in futility.

So now that we've thrown caution to the wind and partied like it's 1999 (again) where does that leave us? For many people, it left them with the combination of nausea, headache and dry-mouth commonly referred to as a hangover. I'm sure there are several other consequences that could come along with an evening of bad decisions, but in the interest of keeping it PG, I'll stick with the most ubiquitously understood example. For many people, the go-to response to a hangover is to grab an over the counter medication of some sort. Others prefer to try to sleep off the symptoms. There are even some people who believe that the best way to deal with a hangover is to pour another glass of whatever beverage gave it to you in the first place. While these are all options and all may help cure the symptoms with varying degrees of success, I myself took a different approach the last time I found myself hung-over almost a decade ago. Partially by choice and partially as a result of an unforseen series of circumstances, I couldn't sleep it off, I couldn't take any meds and I couldn't stomach another drop of the beverage that had done me in the night before. Instead, I was forces to sit in my hungover state and just deal with it. I had to face the consequences of my actions unaided and acknowledge how much it sucked.

You might be wondering why I'm talking about a new years day hangover in an entertainment business blog. If you recall, I started this post by casually referencing a few newsworthy occurrences that have happened since the year has begun. If anyone were to analyze any of these situations, one would realize that the circumstances leading up to said events were not unlike a night of dining and drinking leading up to the new year. Virtually everyone knows what a hangover is, and avoiding on isn't really difficult. The problem is that many people prioritize the enjoyment of the moment over the pain of the consequences that are guaranteed to follow. I don't have a personal private security firm on retainer so I'm not going to address the issue of government shutdown, and I'm not a successful enough entertainer to go anywhere near the entertainment industry scandals, so I'll digress from those and talk about the state of the tech industry... although I'm sure the lessons learned will be equally applicable to those other scenarios.

It's amazing to look at the speed and impact of the recent technological progress we've seen. Within my lifetime I've seen paper maps all but disappear, I've seen constant connectivity to the internet become a reality for the majority of the world (though still not everyone), I've seen music stores close in malls across the country as media streaming became a reality, and we're even beginning to see malls themselves close as home delivery services begin to supplant them. With all of these tech companies coming of age and overshadowing their more analogue competition, one would think that they've been taking detailed notes of the demise of the fossilized establishments they have been displacing. I mean, every smart person knows that history tends to repeat itself. One of the things I think I'm beginning to learn as I get older is that individuals are smart, but when those individuals become a bureaucracy most of the intelligence goes out of the window in favor of following trends and industry best practices. That's not to say that there isn't something to be learned from best practices and trend analysis, but it's important to look at these things objectively when determining how to lead your organization. As I've said before, bad things happen when companies fail to properly prioritize the need to take care of the customer.

In the interest of not beating a dead horse, I'm not going to harp upon the importance of taking care of the customer. This is something everyone knows, but when things like shareholders and hedge funds get involved priorities can become cloudy and the person who most often gets forgotten about is the customer. For some strange reason, everyone tends to forget that in order for a product or service to be successful someone has to be willing to pay for it. Far too often corporate interests get so loud that taking care of the customer takes a back seat to making as much profit as possible with as little investment as possible. What boggles my mind even more is how often companies seem to think that all that's needed for a product to be more successful is more / better marketing and advertising. Don't get me wrong, marketing and advertising are of paramount importance and must always be thought of as investments as opposed to expenses, but they are part of a larger equation that leads to a successful product. Market research, product research, prototyping design, manufacturing, quality control, marketing, and advertising are all part of creating a successful product which leads to a successful company.

The sad truth is that so many corporate executives are so concerned about their own bottom line that they are only care about customer satisfaction to a degree necessary to ensure the payout of their next executive bonus. So what's the solution? The idea I would propose is to tie executive bonuses to customer satisfaction instead of share profitability. The problem with this, of course, is that the shareholders who are invested in the company want to see the share price go as high as possible and have little concern for actual customer satisfaction. What's a bit strange about this focus is how counter-intuitive it is. Satisfied customers tend to be loyal and repetitive customers. The problem is that shareholders want to see as much profitability as quickly as possible and corporate executives want to see as large an executive bonus as possible as quickly as possible. As such, no one seems to care about long term value except the customer and many of them are beginning to shift focus away from long term value as well.

There is a big problem that comes along with subconsciously signaling to customers that the companies they patronize don't care about long term value. Customers gradually begin to realize that it makes no sense to spend large sums of money on a quality product when they can just buy a cheaper product that they can replace just as easily. By removing the focus on long term value corporations self-cannibalize by eroding away the value of their brand. I believe we're seeing this play out in multiple arenas especially the tech field. From my perspectives, it looks like corporate America (and the rest of America as well, but that's another blog post) needs to go on a diet. Instead of focusing on quick market share growth we should be focused on long term sustainable growth. Virtually no successful investor ever made their fortune getting rich with overnight share price inflation. The more we gorge on instant gratification the worse that hangover's gonna hit us with prices come tumbling back down.

Tonight... we dine!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 01 Jan 2019 04:10:00 +0000

2018 Wrap-Up

Greetings and salutations everyone! The time is here; 2019 is upon us. I wish everyone the best as you ring the new year with your fireworks, fried chicken with collard greens and black-eyed-peas (the dish, not the group), champagne, or whatever may happen to be your new years eve tradition. For many people, this is the night when they let it all hang out. Many people, choose this time to get well lubricated with abnormal amounts of liquid courage and bring in their new year by letting the food, alcohol, and bad decisions flow in abundance; to which I say, "Whatever makes you happy fam."

I suppose you can say that I'm at a point in my life where that manner of ringing in the new year is no longer appealing to me. If you live long enough you either become comfortable with where you are and stop growing, or you realize that growth is necessary if you want to move beyond your current circumstances to better circumstances. Such is the normal cycle of life... possibly... experts are still divided on this. One of the things I've recently begun to do around this time of year is to reflect on the previous year in an attempt to get high-level view of how things have gone. My wife and I call this process the after action report (which apparently has become just as important in corporate environments as it is in military environments). When I look back over this year, it's been a doozie, and from what I've heard from many of my friends family, and peers, that sentiment seems to be reverberating at very least throughout my circle of associates. From a business perspective, this year seemed to be extremely volatile and uncertain; markets had dramatic up and down swings on pretty much a daily basis. What's interesting is that according to experts, things weren't abnormally volatile this year, they were abnormally stable last year, which made this year seem volatile by comparison.

I find this perspective rather interesting. It seems that many of us have gotten so accustomed to the abnormal that the normal makes us nervous. Everyone seems to want the feast without the famine; the success without the struggle, but history is replete with examples of icons for whom failure was a necessary part of their eventual success. That being said, knowing that difficulty/failure will eventually lead to success does very little to take the sting out of said difficulty/failure in the moment. For many people, the only way to deal with these challenges is to find something to distract from them. Is it any wonder, then, that so many people spend their new years eve numbing themselves to the year they're about to close the book on? I'm not here to be the fun police, so I'll just say that whatever your vise of choice, be sure to enjoy it responsibly and with moderation. Remember that the challenges are both temporary, and a necessary step in the process of getting to where you want to go; don't let them be the thing that ends your journey. Tomorrow, you may have to get back to the business of being more awesome than you were before, but for now, you can feel free to announce these wise words with a voice of bravado, "Tonight We Dine!!!"

And to all a good night

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 25 Dec 2018 07:40:00 +0000

The important role entertainment plays in our holiday season

Whether you refer to this as the Christmas or Holiday Season (logical arguments can be made for and against both points of view) everyone can admit that entertainment plays an important role in the season. Indeed, this is the time of year when the Hallmark channel pivots from their typical sappy (and unrealistic) romance programming to sappy (and unrealistic) Christmas themed romance programming. It's also the time of year for which every music producer, composer, and writer who ever contributed to a Christmas themed song anxiously awaits as they know that those royalty checks will come rolling in soon afterward (I'm looking at you Mariah Carey and Mark Lowery).

But the profits go beyond just music. Christmas and Christmas themed movie releases have become something of a tradition lately. Not only do these films play a pivotal role in setting the Christmas atmosphere in homes everywhere, but apparently Christmas day theatrical releases are a fairly decent way to further monetize a day when many people would otherwise be sitting at home enjoying time with their families. So just how much of an impact can Christmas entertainment have? I've addressed the impact that media can have on human psychology in previous articles, so I'll avoid beating a proverbial dead horse; suffice it to say that the media we consume can have a significant impact on our emotions, beliefs, and our traditions.

If you're getting a feeling of déjà vu, you're not hallucinating. I did cover the topic of how different forms of media can influence our consumption habits a few weeks ago with the article "The Most Wonderful Sale of the Year," but that was more focused on the advertisement space. I think it's important to differentiate the influence of music and film because many of us simply consume of music or film with the intention of enjoyment / recreation and almost never consider the possibility that we're being marketed to. In contrast, when we see / hear a commercial or advertisement, we're at least aware that the purpose is to sell us on something. The interesting thing is that so many people are getting marketed to from so many directions these days that many of us are beginning to develop a gag reflex to most traditional forms of advertisements. Ad firms aren't stupid; it's their job to know the landscape of the advertising space better than anyone so we must acknowledge their awareness to our awareness of and attempts to avoid them.

Enter product placement...

The earliest example of product placement in film that immediately comes to mind is the early 1960's film "Breakfast at Tiffany's" however, one of the most memorable would have to be Audi's recent partnership with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. A brand's ability to strategically place itself as a near indispensable part of a major blockbuster's story line can be a boon to the company's brand recognition, popularity and bottom line. Going back to the Audi example, even non-car people will identify the vehicle in the image on the right as "Tony Stark's car" whether they know what an Audi is or not. In addition, the fact that it's Tony Stark's car will inevitably lead to more people doing a quick web search on their mobile device and educating themselves on "What kind of car was that Tony Stark drove in Iron Man?" (although somehow an Acura made it's way into there... I'm still trying to figure that one out)

Subjectively speaking, an Audi R8 isn't a very expensive vehicle. That may sound like a ridiculous statement, but just for some context, the R8 doesn't even crack the list of the 50 most expensive super cars in the world. Despite this fact, if the average non-car person sees you pull up in one of these, they will automatically categorize you into the upper-echelon of baller status simply because you're driving the Tony Stark car. I'm not sure how much of an expenditure it was for Audi to provide Marvel Studios with enough vehicles and fuel for the necessary film time, but I'd say they've gotten more than a return on investment given how much the product placement has increased their profile and visibility and the fact that as far as I could tell from watching the films several times over (exclusively for research purposes) their vehicles were treated gingerly and with a great amount of care on set (I mean, except for that one The Black Panther destroyed).

So why all this rambling about product placement and what does it have to do with Christmas entertainment? To get to that, I think it's important to remember that tangible products aren't the only things being advertised to us when we consume of music or films. Everything we watch or listen to has an effect on us. Many times we don't even realize the effect, but our subconscious is pretty good at developing our tendencies, perspectives and constructing a cohesive worldview and understanding of the world around us. We often assimilate views about what normal looks like by what we see and listen to, and this is especially true for young minds that have not yet developed the ability to suppress many of their baser instincts and differentiate between reality and reality TV. That being said, what are we programming ourselves with when we consume of Christmas media, and is it what we truly want / who we truly are, or is it just a vehicle for someone else's purpose?

Now, for those of you worried that this is about to take a conspiracy theorist turn, fear not. I'm far too busy trying to stay off the radar of the Lizard People and the Men in Black (I hear they'll hunt you down internationally now) to go putting their business in the streets. What I will say is that product placement is only one of the messages that are fed to the populous. Historically speaking, media has been used to promote both great good and great evil, and it's important to recognize that none of us are immune to the effects of media manipulation. A great man once said that the only barrier to truth is the assumption that you already have it. It is this very state of scornful arrogance that causes many people not to recognize the advertisements that exist in the media that we consume.

As the year draws to a close, I would encourage us all to grab our figurative Windex wipes and clean our figurative lenses, and then turn said lenses on the Christmas media that we consume of. Look for trends and patterns. Try to recognize things that you would never think to look for. Get the perspectives of other people. Seek out opinions that differ from your own and strive to understand them. Once you've had that trial run with your Christmas entertainment, try turning that lens upon the rest of the media you consume. If you do so with an open mind you may find that your views are correct, you may even find that your views are incorrect. We have been endowed by our creator with the right to have our own opinion, so I'll never tell someone that they're wrong for having the opinion they have as long as they pay me the same courtesy, but I will willing explain my points of view in the appropriate setting for those who genuinely want to hear it and aren't just looking for an argument. What's most important is to remember that you don't have to agree to understand; you can still love people you don't agree with... just ask anyone with siblings.

Why All The Business Bias

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 17 Dec 2018 19:56:00 +0000

The state of bias in the business world, a brief history of why it exists, and what's being done to change it.

I love this guy, he's me to a tee.

If you've spent any amount of time living anywhere that doesn't happen to be beneath a rock, you'll know that one of the latest buzz words we've begun to hear floated in conversation is "representation." When I first started hearing this, I must ashamedly admit that I was worried that it was just another phrase that would eventually become overused, appropriated for some purpose other than its intent, and then get swept under the rug of history only to ever be addressed in civics classes and among intellectual circles. As a natural extension of this perspective, I found myself wondering about the relevance the recent representation hype. I guess after a life of seeing history repeat itself far more often than I'd like to admit, I've become a bit of a cynic. A hopeful cynic, but a cynic none the less.

Before completely writing off the idea of promoting representation, I did something I think more people should do; I simply started paying attention. I noticed that I was hearing people talking about representation everywhere, especially in the entertainment and technology fields. This sparked my interest as all of my professional qualifications fall in one of these two arenas. I guess you could say the "representation conversation" figuratively hit closer to home. That being said, I decided to do more research and what I found was intriguing, but nothing I didn't already know at my core. According to Fortune, the demographic disparities among Fortune 500 executive leadership help give some context to why so many people are talking about representation. I'm a very data-driven person and, as such, I found myself unexpectedly and painstakingly cobbling together this spreadsheet over a couple of hours as part of my attempt to excavate the context of the statistics. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission keeps track of these stats so anyone can go and look at the raw data, but I needed to break the numbers down to actual readable percentages in order for things to come together. I included the link to my simplified demographic percentages if you're curious to see what it actually looks like in simplified form, but honestly after a few pages it all becomes rote and repetitive as all the numbers echo the same message. If the stats are to be believed, they indicate a pronounced reduction of opportunities for upward mobility depending on where you stand on demographic landscape. Regardless of what industry you look at, you seem to find that the distribution of executive / management positions seem to be disproportionately skewed along demographic lines. The tech industry has rightfully earned the reputation for hiring biases, but this trend is surprisingly exaggerated in the entertainment industry (not surprising, but surprisingly exaggerated).

2018 Grammy Academy Luncheon Guests

Although my college experience would have led me to believe differently, there are large swaths of homogeneity within the entertainment industry. Anyone who's heard the recent debates surrounding the representation (or lack thereof) amongst academy award nominees / winners can attest to the fact that Hollywood, despite it's alleged liberal leanings, continues to have a diversity problem.

The Grammy Academy's Sci-Tech award recipients

The tech industry doesn't fare much better. Several tech companies have recently seen a flood of bad press over lack of diversity among their hirees. Indeed, the perceived lack of intelligence of women has even begun to be held by women as well. According to UNESCO, women comprise less than 30% of the world's researchers, despite the fact that they make up just under 50% of the world's population.

So how did things get to this point? As I typed that last line, I realized that my line of thinking was skewed. The question I should really be asking is how do we analyze where things currently are. Context is everything and, as my elders were always so fond of saying, you have to know where you've come from to know where you're going. I propose that knowing where you've come from is also an important factor in determining where you currently are as well. The history of the progress of civil rights in this country is no secret for all but the most stubborn doubters of the well-known and even better-documented facts. The myriad consequences of the scar left on our country's collective subconscious by the sins of our colonial heritage have been analyzed by people far more intelligent, well-spoken, and better qualified than myself. These consequences range from where we end up living, which then affects the schools we end up attending, the medical care receive, and, lest I stray too far from our core topic, the type of employment we end up having (which also inevitably determines our income level, which determines where we live, and the circle goes on).

Based upon the above concept now being popularly referred to as the "cycle of poverty" It's easy to see how toppling just one of those dominoes in that cycle can have a downward ripple effect on those who lack the social / economic / educational capital to recover from the fall of the first domino. The converse of this is true as well. Once someone has acquired wealth and the knowledge of the principals of the cycle of wealth, it's pretty easy to continue growing said wealth incrementally. Of course, some wealthy individuals who know this won't say it simply due to the fact that it just makes one feel better to talk about how much hard work and effort they put into their success and how much they deserve it.

If you happen to be fortunate enough to not have to endure the consequences of having the "wrong" heritage, you still have to be concerned about being the "wrong" gender. As in the previous example, the history of gender equality is also well documented, and as such can help give us a pretty good idea of how the country got here, how its job market evolved over time, and how so many biases became so deeply embedded. The sad truth is that for many people, their biases have been learned from an early age by watching and mirroring the example of those closest to them. What's even sadder is that one of the negative impacts that said biases can have on those subjected to them is the creation and reinforcement of these same biases within the people who fall victim to them.

This is an honest, no-lie screenshot of what happens when you
perform a Google search for the phrase "beautiful woman"

So what can be done about it. We know that biases exist and that we all to some extent have had them programmed into our subconscious. We also know that said biases can impact the life and / or death of large segments of the polis. We know the statistics and we've examined all the numbers. So the important question is will it spur anyone to action. The answer of this hopeful cynic is a tepidly optimistic "Looks like it, but we'll see how it goes." The tech giants are starting to wake up. It's no longer a secret that increasing diversity will have a positive impact on those who do it right. Many of silicon valley's recent efforts haven't resulted in ideal solutions, but I believe that to be more a result of not exactly knowing how to approach such a complex and ubiquitous problem than not caring to try. I know tech, and I know tech people. Difficult problems motivate us... sometimes to the point of obsession. If you tell an ambitious tech professional that they can't solve a particular problem, it's highly likely that the response will be some derivative of "Watch me!" followed by days of cursing, throwing the mouse across the room, walking across the room to pick up said mouse and repair it, almost got-its, and finally a "Eureka!" moment... and then maybe some sleep.

The entertainment industry is another thing entirely. Despite the fact that it's much more visible to most people, the majority of the tech industry is far younger than the entertainment industry and was in many instances born out of a culture that opposed the mainstream and embraced agility and thinking forward. Although the artists get younger, and the sound and visuals get more polished, at the core the entertainment industry is the same old industry repeating the same message it has for decades. I regularly see news articles with headlines proclaiming a great media crisis as a result of lost viewership / listenership (not sure if that's a word, but I'm going with it). The heads of industry usually blame said losses on various factors (music and movie piracy, streaming services, cord cutting, etc) but I submit that the problem is that the country is maturing and moving forward while the entertainment industry is playing the same old tunes with synth instruments (both literally and figuratively now that I think of it). There have been numerous instances that have proven that embracing media that resembles what our country currently looks like pays dividends, but the entertainment industry powers that be seem to be too staunchly set in their ways to hear the coins falling.

Where does that leave us. I suspect that the entertainment industry will either evolve or become another casualty of the overarching disruption being caused by the tech industry; we can already see tech entities beginning to consume the media industry as a whole. Media companies are beginning to get folded into tech companies and and become just another service in the ever so popular
"As a Service" model. I personally don't have a problem with this if it leads to the paradigm shift needed to see these depressing statistics erode away into the annals of history only to resurface in lectures and Civics classes.

Let Me Be Great!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:21:00 +0000

So a few months back, my wife bought a new Macbook Pro. She was getting ready to leave the country for an extended business trip and we decided that it would be best to get all of her tech up to date since she isn't the tech person in the family. We also took a trip to our nearest Apple store and had them give her phone a once-over and replace the battery to make sure she'd be good to go. As you can probably tell, we're an Apple family. If you're not an Apple person / family, that's ok. We have our reasons for liking Apple products and so that's what we use. It's entirely possible that there's another solution that would serve our purposes better, but the trade-offs don't make the proposition worth it to us. What's interesting is that whenever I find myself among non-Apple people, someone always thinks it necessary to make some disparaging remark about our iDevices. I'm sure non-Apple people can attest that they've probably experienced the same thing from Apple people. In fact, if you take this last paragraph and substitute the word "Apple" for your operating system of choice (Android I suppose, since the rest of the mobile operating systems are essentially extinct) I suspect the scenario wouldn't be that far from the truth.

The above image and statement is entirely correct
and non-debatable.

Why is that? We all have been endowed by our creator with the right to choose. What's sad is that many of us have begun to adopt the belief that others should only be able to choose if that choice lines up with ours. Many of us have even extrapolated that perspective to essentially believing that there are two views: our view, and the wrong view. This ever increasing close-mindedness that's becoming more and more prevalent within the populous is creating some interesting problems. When we refuse to acknowledge the possibility that we might not be correct, it creates a negative feedback loop that I've begun to refer to as SIPMOP (self induced permanent myopia of perspective).

So why am I talking about preferences and perspectives in an entertainment business blog? SIPMOP is an interesting thing that content creators and business-people alike have to grapple with. It's very seldom, if ever that we subject ourselves to double blind tests of preferences. As such, many people have set preferences simply because they have set preferences. I know that sounds like double talk, but the truth is that many people only prefer certain things a certain way because that's what they've always preferred and they refuse to entertain any ideas that run contrary to their established perspectives.

This concept doesn't exist. Something can be either one
or the other, not both!

What does this mean for businesses hoping to bring an idea / concept / product / service to market that is different from what the populous is familiar with. In short, it's a challenge to say the least. There's a running joke in the music industry that if you tell someone you're an artist they'll ask you to describe your music by telling them what it's like. The same can be said of many products and services. If I were to tell you I was designing an all new vehicle that I would be bringing to market, the first thing you'd ask is "What's it gonna be like? Will it be like a truck, or a car, or an SUV, or a minivan?" If I were to reply "Not like any of those" most people would simply say "Ok then, good luck with that." A small minority would probe further just out of curiosity, but that just illustrates the point that most people have no interest in anything that doesn't fit into their boxes of preconceived ideas. This causes most business to create and market products that present a very slight twist on concepts that consumers are already familiar with. "You may own a cell phone, but do you own a cell phone with twice as much memory? This is game changing, no, paradigm shifting!" So goes the narrative of most startups and pretty much anyone trying to sell you a newer version of something that you already have.

Where does that leave innovators that truly have paradigm shifting ideas. Perhaps it's because I'm a comic book fan, or because I just finished watching yet another comic book movie trailer, but for this example I'm going to rewind us to ten years ago when the Marvel Cinematic Universe was birthed. The idea may not seem that earth shattering now with hindsight, but I think it's important to set that moment in the context of its time.

This is an actual photograph of a rotten tomato in the wild. They
can be found in cubicles in their Beverly Hill office location.

The early 2000's was not a good time for superhero movies. 2003 saw Eric Bana's portrayal of the Incredible Hulk get only a 62% on Rotten Tomatoes, Superman Returns got lukewarm to terrible reviews in 2006, and it's well known that Marvel fans pretty much hated the X-Men films. There were a few bright spots, but overall, this was the ecosystem within which Avi Arad and Kevin Feige decided "You know what this world need's, a Marvel Cinematic Universe." It's hard to imagine what the reception was in those board rooms when they tried to pitch that idea; not to mention how difficult it must have been to get funding. I'd imagine that they initially pitched the idea of funding Iron Man as a hero movie not much different from the others. The creators, though, had the idea all along of a shared universe. From that perspective, it seems like the lesson is that in order to accomplish great things one must often conceal their intentions and not do too much at once. By giving the people something that was similar to what they were familiar with but not so different as to invoke an immediate reflex of rejection and sticking to what was planned from the beginning, the team at Marvel were able to accomplish what no other comic franchise has before or since, a cohesive shared universe that has been critically and commercially successful and raised the bar on what the art form can be.

What does this mean for you innovators and creators out there? Don't be afraid to dream big and imagine amazing things. Don't limit your creativity to what you already see around you, but while you imagine, don't forget about SIPMOP. Lot's of amazing ideas never get off the ground because their creators fail to compensate for the lack of imagination of everyone else. Just because you want to design an aircraft that folds space-time in order to achieve travel times that are currently unfathomable doesn't mean you have to tell everyone that. Build the run-of-the-mill airplane or spaceship, just build it slightly better than anyone else's and use the proceeds to fund your space-time folding vehicle in your spare time. Understand that most people don't have the imagination to believe in anything they can't see and some won't believe in something even when it's literally / figuratively staring them right in the face. I know, the logic of SIPMOP doesn't make much logical sense but neither do the preferences of many customers. Regardless, at least now you know that it exists and despite how nonsensical it may be, many people use it to make decisions every day. As such, you'll need to consider it the next time you start development on that earth moving, space-time folding app that's both iOS and Android compatible.

Would You Like A Side of Spam With That?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 03 Dec 2018 15:27:00 +0000

While consulting with tech support this afternoon to try to figure out why my TV was having trouble displaying HDR content from HDR Blu Rays, I noticed something extremely odd about the manufacturer's website. I typed (InsertTVManufacturerName).com into my browser and as soon as the page was loaded, I was immediately confronted with a popup asking me to complete a survey about the webpage. Because I was a bit frustrated about the fact that I was there in the first place, my immediate response was to agree to the survey with every intention of raking the company over the coals. Was the website clunky? No. Was the customer service experience bad? I hadn't even chatted with a representative yet. Did they provide an inferior product? I hadn't even yet determined whether there was a legitimate problem or if it was user error. The only thought on my mind at the time was the fact that a very expensive product wasn't working and the company had either knowingly or unknowingly erected a barrier between me and the help I was looking for. Was there a better way they could have solicited customer feedback? Possibly, but it certainly wasn't the most intrusive approach they could have taken.

You may be wondering why, then, if I was so agitated at that popup that I'm giving so much grace to (InsertTVManufacturerName). The thing is, I understand and even appreciate a company that cares about how their customers feel about their product and services. Customer feedback is necessary for any business that wants to ensure that they're providing a relevant product or valuable service to their customer base. Businesses that operate as if they don't have to care about the desires and/or perspectives of their customers are just a recession /competitor / paradigm-shift away from bankruptcy. That being said, there is a fine line between communicating with your customers and pestering them. If a business can't figure out how to straddle said line, they run the risk of pushing away the customers that they need to survive. I'll give an example:

So when is the last time someone asked for your email address? If you spend any significant amount of time online, this probably happens regularly. Pretty much every website I visit these days seems to have some popup that appears shortly after you land on the site soliciting you to sign up for their newsletter / special offers / brochure. I almost never put my email in these popups and I suspect that most of you don't either. The problem isn't the fact that we don't think the information they'll provide might have value. It's not even the fact that we're worried about them selling our email address to another solicitor (although this is a valid concern). The problem (for me at least) is that I receive so much email on a daily basis that it's hard to filter through the noise. I can't tell you how many times I've missed out on an important email because it got lost in the deluge of stuff that's irrelevant to my current plight. At least once a quarter I go on an "unsubscribe spree" because I'm so sick of trying to sift through everything. When that happens, whomever I'm unsubscribing from isn't making contact, moving product / services, or getting feedback, and they probably haven't been for some time.

We've all at some point received an email from our unknown millionaire uncle in Nigeria who needs our account information to wire over our inheritance. This is obviously spam, and most people who are at least moderately technically savvy would never fall for it. The problem comes when emails from legitimate businesses that are intended to advertise valid products and services that we may desire to partake of get mentally categorized in the same way that useless spam does. This can happen for a multitude of reasons, but the primary reason is due to excessive frequency. Anyone who's ever taken an economics class recognizes that ubiquity lowers value. If I receive an email every day telling me about a once-in-a-lifetime deal, I'll automatically assume that once-in-a-lifetime must mean 365 days a year.

There's nothing wrong with advertising, but one of the things business must strive to do is ensure that their advertising to the appropriate customer base and with the appropriate frequency. This is important because we want to make sure our advertisement doesn't have the opposite effect. I've heard it said before to "spread the net wide to increase your chances of catching something" but the problem is that when you go from being a source of value to a source of nagging, people generally start avoiding you and your communications. Ideally, you want your potential customers to look forward to hearing from you.

Lastly, I'll address what I consider to be the cardinal sin of advertising. There's nothing illegal about it (yet), but it's almost certainly guaranteed to earn you the ire of a potential customer. For me, the one thing that should always be avoided when advertising to customers is unsolicited cold calling / emailing. I can't tell you how many times I've received a random email from some company trying to sell me a product or service and my first thoughts were "who is this person / company, and how did they get my information?" Usually, when this happens, I'll embark on a hunt to determine where the leak came from. I suspect that most people aren't that thorough, but I also suspect that most people don't particularly care to have their personal information used in a manner that they didn't approve of when they initially provided it. Many businesses sidestep this issue by creating the now infamous

"must agree" terms and conditions, but this doesn't take away from the dishonest nature of the scenario, and actually creates opportunities for malicious actors as it takes the burden of safeguarding information off of the information collector and instead puts it on the customer. As long as there's a market for personal information, someone will collect it, someone will sell it, and someone will buy it. I'm not going to be the ethics police here, but I will say that it's probably not a wise idea to gain personal information in an unethical manner, even if it is legal. When data breaches make their way into the media, there's always plenty of blame to go around, and I personally would prefer to be as far away from unethical data mining practices as possible.

So how do you advertise without nagging / stalking potential customers? There are a few things I'd do. First, be sure that who you're emailing is actually a potential customer. Not doing so is essentially wasting your advertising dollars. One of the best ways to do this is by asking people actually opt-in to mailing lists when they do business with you. Another is by advertising to people you've already made contact with either in person or on social media. If you absolutely must cold-email people, be sure that their contact info was gathered in a reputable manner and even then, instead of immediately emailing them a pitch, send an introductory email perhaps detailing how you know them / how you got their information and asking if they'd like to continue receiving communications from you. Lastly, avoid creating a deluge. What I mean is don't send emails on a daily basis. The more infrequent your communications are, the more valuable they'll be. There are certain companies whose emails I always read just because they almost never email me. There are certain others who I'm contemplating unsubscribing from as soon as I'm done writing this post just because they're a part of my daily must-delete task list. Overall it may be unfamiliar and uncomfortable to consider, but it's important to ensure that in your enthusiasm to gain new customers you don't frighten them off by being too aggressive or spamming their inbox. There is a balance and if you get it just right your customers will look forward to receiving those periodic emails instead of hitting the delete button without even reading them.

The Most Wonderful Sale of the Year

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 26 Nov 2018 19:15:00 +0000

So it's that time of year again; the time when everyone wants you to believe that they're giving you the deal of a lifetime. It's the time when prices are so low-low-low that you'd be a fool not to take out a second mortgage and go ball out at your nearest retailer. It's the time when (debatably) otherwise sane people will take a week off from work just to camp out in front of your friendly neighborhood big-box store just to get the largest, latest, and greatest electronics at prices so low they can't be advertised!

Yep, that's the narrative that starts getting heavily advertised right around the beginning of November and begins to wind down as the year does. I wonder, though, if we'd take a pause and analyze the situation, just how rational the whole thing is. Now, I understand that I live in the good ol' US of A where consumerism is the unofficial state religion. That being said, I guess it only makes sense that the word "sale" would evoke such a primal response in the large majority of the populous. The truth is that none of us is immune to the psychological effect that has in modern times began to be referred to as FOMO (fear of missing out). I'm sure we can all recall a time when we missed out on an event or opportunity that we later regretted. Even as I was researching for this article I ran upon a sale that I missed on Black Friday and let out an "Awww man!" Such is life, we can't be everywhere for everything.

One of the more recent developments is our ability to be aware of the multitude of missed opportunities. In times past, the only way you'd find out that you missed out on something was by word of mouth or television. Today, in our always on-always connected society, everyone wants to tell anyone who'll listen about the awesome thing that they just did/experienced. For evidence, one need only take a trip over to their favorite social media app of choice. Indeed, psychologists has linked the uptick in FOMO among the populous to the rise of social media.

From a financial perspective, it's understandable why people fear missing out. As I'm writing this I find myself reflecting on an episode of King of the Hill in which Hank Hill paid MSRP for every vehicle he purchased for 20 years (If you've never bought a car or are unfamiliar with why this is to terrible, check out this write-up from Edmunds). We can all recall a time when we paid too much for something, and since pretty much everything is purchased with currency, spending too much on one thing means we have less to spend on anything else. The logic makes sense, but the problem comes about when business tailor their marketing to take advantage of this mentality.

The sad truth is that there are no shortage of marketing agencies creating campaigns for their clients that are tailor-made to take advantage of the persistent FOMO that resides within the collective national subconscious. Many of the articles on the topic specifically promote the idea that millennials are especially vulnerable to FOMO marketing. What's interesting is how pervasive this marketing technique has become. One of the things that comes to mind is virtually all of the news media coverage on virtually any topic upon which opinions are divided. I'll cover FOMO politics in a later article, but suffice it to say that most politicians today have built their platform on a FOMO foundation.

So what does all this FOMO talk have to do with "The Most Wonderful Sale of the Year?" I would go out on a limb and say that the entire concept of Black Friday is built on everyone collectively fearing that they'll miss out on a huge discount when the truth is that the value you get by shopping during that particular weekend is negligible at best. According to this article from Business Insider, you may actually be getting a worse value than you'd get if you'd shopped during any other time of the year. In addition, the FOMO is causing many retailers to push Black Friday back even further, such that it's starting to eat into the Thanksgiving holiday time that employees should be free to spend with their families.

So am I saying that Black Friday is a terrible thing that need to go away? No. What I am advocating is just that we be aware that these factors exist and that there are those who would seek to use these market forces for their own purposes, be they honorable, nefarious, or something in between. Also, if you're a marketing professional, be aware that overuse of FOMO will inevitably cause it to be less effective. Even now there is a trend of more people unplugging as a result of FOMO fatigue. If you're not a marketing professional, I'd just say do you, and just be sure that what you're doing is for you and not for FOMO, because in my experience, fear is a terrible reason for doing anything.

Shut Up And Take My Money!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 05 Nov 2018 00:59:00 +0000

I'm sure we've all seen this meme pop up somewhere in one of our social timelines recently. It's a humorous concept that something would ever be so provocative that it would evoke the response within a person of casting our primary form of currency in appreciation, but the truth is that we all recognize on some level exactly what that "something" is. We tend to call that something "better."

Because I know that the last sentence was a bit esoteric, I'll elaborate with an example. The Department of Motor Vehicles is the quintessential example of government inefficiency. I would love to see a statistical analysis of the average man-hours are wasted at United States DMV's every year (from what I hear, this example won't necessarily translate for my friends in different parts of the world, so if you fall into that category, just substitute "DMV" for whatever your country's particular model of government inefficiency is). With very few exceptions, anyone who's ever experienced a US DMV will almost certainly be able to without hesitation recall at least one DMV horror story. Whether it's a cranky employee, over-convoluted process, or a lack of available information, these horror stories and their associated negative emotions have created an apprehension within the collective national subconscious against the idea of having to step foot into the DMV. If you doubt this, just go into any public setting and say aloud "I love going to the DMV" and watch the stares you get (if you feel like living dangerously, try announcing "I work at the DMV.")

That being said, it's little wonder that the only reason the DMV is still is in operation is due to the fact that its existence is essentially mandated by the government (I say "essentially" because there are some legal/constitutional caveats to that statement). Setting aside for a moment the human tendency toward corruption, if a law were to be passed tomorrow that forced DMVs to compete with private entities moving into their arena, three things would happen:

1. Customers would choose whichever entity provided the better service
2. Service would improve
3. Entities that failed to improve/compete would go out of business.

So what does that mean for we, the business minded?

As I write this, I'm currently stuffed into a airline seat with my wrists at an awkward angle to the keyboard because the standard seating size on a modern airline is apparently only designed with toddlers and petite people in mind. One of the reasons I tend to gravitate toward this airline is due to their price structure regarding baggage and priority boarding. Although these two aspects of the airline stand head and shoulders above their competitors, the ever shrinking seat sizes on not just this, but all airlines leave much to be desired. As I sat here in my microscopic seat, I found myself beginning to ponder upon what my options are for more practical cross-country travel. I came to the conclusion that until high-speed rail becomes as ubiquitous in this country as it is in other parts of the world, my only option is to spend more money for a better service.

And there's the rub. If you want better it almost always costs more; whether it be more time or more money. The more money part is easily understandable, but the more time part can get slightly more convoluted. For example, my wife and mother-in-law are serial deal hunters. They will sign up for email newsletters from their favorite retailers and shop at exactly 6:42 PM on the third Thursday of every other summer month if that means getting 30% off that cashmere sweater that they've been eyeing. For me, that's way too much effort, but apparently that's what it takes to get the deals. That's the perfect example of the time-cost factor.

On the surface, it often seems that time spent is much less expensive than money. If that last sentence made you uncomfortable, then you've probably already realized what I'm about to say. If not, then prepare to have your perspective altered. Because time isn't a tangible resource, many people make the mistake of not placing the appropriate amount of value on it. In reality, time is the only resource that no person currently living on this planet has the ability to create/procure more of. Ponder on that for a second (but not too long). If you spent 10 minutes watching cat videos on YouTube, that's 10 minutes you'll never get back, no matter how many videos on wealth creation you watch afterward.

I've found myself explaining this concept to more and more people lately as it seems like a really important concept to have a firm grasp upon. You have to know how to appropriately value your time because this will make it easy to roughly estimate whether something is worth doing or paying to have it done.

The way I generally approach it is with the "what's my time worth" method. It works like this:

Let's say my salary averages out to approximately $15/hr. and I need to wash my car. If I'm a professional car-washer, then I can probably wash it in 30 minutes, but if I'm not a professional it may take 2 hours (really, I've tried it). By that math, it costs a non-professional approximately $30 to wash their own car, not including the cost of purchasing car-washing tools and products. If a professional charges $15 to come to your place of business and wash your car for you, by paying them you essentially save $15 not including what you save on materials since they'll bring their own.

That's a really simple example (I know economists are probably shuddering) but I think it's comprehensive enough that you can start to put it into practice.

Once you get comfortable with calculating the value of your time, you eventually come to a realization; the more money you make, the more expensive your time becomes. When you reach this epiphany point, a lot of things start to make sense. That explains why many ultra-wealthy people have their own private jets. If I make $10,000/hr, it suddenly becomes RIDICULOUSLY expensive to arrive 2 hours early, take off shoes, go through airport security, endure delay-upon-delay, etc. When you make over 20mil/yr, you have to get better and more efficient at managing your time, otherwise you'll be essentially bleeding money. (This is one the primary reason I'm so impressed when a I encounter a wealthy person who isn't an impatient jerk)

And that brings me back to my airline predicament. I could spend a significant portion of my yearly salary simply chartering a private jet to whisk me away to and from my destination, but at the end of the day, the math simply doesn't add up for me. Many people are well aware of what better looks like, but the numbers may not always make better the wiser decision. At the end of the day, it's important to know how to stick to the numbers. Know the value of your time and you'll always be able to determine whether it makes sense to do something yourself or pay someone else; when it makes sense to take the seemingly frugal option, and when it's actually more frugal to yell "Shut Up and Take My Money!"

Boycott The World (I'll be back to business soon... I promise)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Feb 2017 06:37:00 +0000

Many of you know that my wife and I have recently lifted our boycott of a national retail giant. The details surrounding said boycott are not of issue at the moment. What is at issue is my difficulty acclimating to our "non-boycott" state. We've spent the last 5 years conditioning ourselves to avoid contributing to this universally ubiquitous retailer's bottom line until our point of contention was adequately resolved. Now that we're no longer boycotting this establishment I've noticed that many of the habits, tendencies and even the emotional under-current that we developed as a result of disciplining ourselves to avoid this particular retailer still remain. I cognitively know that the reasons for our boycott no longer exist and yet it's difficult to fully feel comfortable visiting the establishment.

Interesting paradox.

Now let's extrapolate that.

There are people that walk this very earth who have been ingrained throughout their lives to think and/or feel anxiety toward entire demographics and/or people groups. There can be mountains of facts, statistics and documented verifiable examples that indicate that their preconceived notions are baseless, but one must make a conscious decision to operate in opposition to a view that they've spent their entire life convincing themselves is true if they ever hope to overcome their ingrained biases. I'm having trouble overcoming 5 years of self-administered programming; I can only imaging what it's like to try to overcome a lifetime of indoctrination administered by the very figures that we instinctively believe care most about us and have our best interest at heart. I don't believe that the difficulty of improvement excuses one for not changing for the better; what I do believe that the first step in bridging the gap between people/people groups/demographics is for each to take a brutally honest assessment of themselves, attempt to get the best possible idea of what really exists at their core and then determine how said ideas, convictions and impulses influences how we relate to each other.

Refusing to interact with people who have a bias against you doesn't change their bias, it only reinforces it through absence of an example contradictory to what they've come to believe. Grace, understanding and deliberate, non-antagonistic interaction with diverse people-groups is the only way we can ever hope to bridge the gap and erase the lines that divide us all.

For those who are comfortable with the division that exist, that's okay too. All things come to pass, including those who seek to maintain the status-quo.

The "At Least I'm Not That Guy" Paradox

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:39:00 +0000

Let me preface this with a disclaimer:

This not a Bible lesson. I personally am a Christian, but all of the Biblical reference is for the purpose of illustrating an important business principal. With that disclaimer, here we go.

So, when I was a kid, we went to church a lot... I mean a whole lot... and unlike many of the ideals and trends that were handed down to me as a result of tradition, this one has proven to be endlessly relevant and impactful throughout my life. In any case, I remember being told a story in which Jesus was, believe it or not, telling a story. Apparently, he had a solid understanding of the fact that most people can't grasp how a concept relates to them unless they can point a finger and say "I'm not gonna be like that person," so he did this fairly often. In that same spirit, I'm going to present to you this little business illustration (Stay tuned, because this is a story within a story).

So in this particular story, Jesus was talking about two guys who went to church. One of the guys kneeled down to pray. This particular guy was kind of shady and he knew it. As such, his prayer went something like this:

"Dear God,

I come before you humbly. I know I've been kind of shady, I'm sorry, help me not to be shady anymore."

The other guy was a real holy roller. He was kind of like my family during my childhood; at the church whenever the doors were open. He prayed, and it went something like this:

"Dear God,

I thank you I'm not as bad as that shady guy over there."

Now, there's no shortage of reasons I can come up with as to why this was just horrible. In this case, let's just look at homeboy's attitude (yes, I said homeboy. I promise I'll include enough intricate articulation and graduate-level vocabulary throughout the remainder of this composition to compensate for it).

In the Bible, it says that God wants people to come before him humbly. It may seem that he's just doing this because he's full of himself (and there are those who would argue whether or not he's justified in this way of thinking) however, upon closer inspection, I realized that this was not the point at all. When you look at the posturing of the two guys, it shows the consequences of lacking humility. One guy displayed a great amount of self awareness. He was flawed, but he was also very conscious of his flaws. His humility allowed him to take an accurate self inventory, and approach God in a respectful manner.

The second gentleman in the story had an utter lack of humility. Not only did he display an elitist attitude and lack of respect for his fellow man, but the fact that he was so stuck up prevented him from seeing his own flaws and, by extension, prevented him from making atonement for them.

So who was really better off? The guy who was apologizing for his flaws, or the guy who was pointing out someone else's flaws instead of fixing his own. Beyond that, how flawed was the first guy really? He may have had his own issues, but he was wise enough to know it, and humble enough to ask for help to get it right.

(Admit it, you feel a bit of Fremdschämen looking at this)

So let's apply this concept to business. How many times have we seen a commercial where one company is making comparisons to, and bad mouthing their competition? Anybody remember that dirty feeling you get after seeing it? The Germans refer to this as Fremdschämen. I use the German term, because the closest thing we have to this in English is "second-hand embarrassment". Either way it's a feeling most of us know all-too-well, and not a very good way to convince anyone that you offer a superior product.

Now let's look at the reverse of that. I remember Anthony Anderson once saying in a movie that somebody who's busy walking the walk doesn't have time to talk the talk. This is highly representative of some of the more successful businesses to date, as well as our parishioner in the above example. He was too busy focusing on getting himself right to notice that he was being judged by the people around him, meanwhile, the guy who was judging him was too busy passing condemnation to take a hard look at himself and figure out where he could improve.

If you study many of the most successful companies in existence, you'll notice that it is a seldom occurrence for them to bad-mouth their competition. Many don't even publicly acknowledge the fact that they have competition. Steve Jobs didn't make Apple the company that he did by looking at other companies. He looked at those who determined whether his products would succeed, and made a dogged effort to give them what they were asking for. Some business professionals refer to this as "customer facing policies," or even "customer-centric operation."

When you're busy making your business the best it can be and ensuring that the entity that holds the fate of your company in their hands (in this case the client/customer) is satisfied, you don't have to

worry about your competition. In this current microwave generation, it is a widely held misconception that customers are more concerned with saving money than being treated with respect and dignity. If you don't believe this to be a misconception, just go down to your nearest airport and ask a few people how much they'd be willing to pay to avoid dealing with TSA; I think you'd be surprised by some of the answers. If you asked those same people why, most would give you some derivative of the fact that they don't like being publicly humiliated by crass government employees. If there was another option that treated customers with a reasonable amount of respect, it would be the premiere choice.

And this brings us to the point of this whole post. When a business is even slightly better than the other guy they will usually be much more successful. The guy kneeling at the temple in the second paragraph wasn't perfect, but the main thing he did right was coming with the right attitude. In contrast, the guy who supposedly had it all together couldn't even get his approach right. There's a lot to be gained from thinking about this situation critically and looking at how it applies to the business landscape. The points I would emphasize are these:

1. Attitude is everything. Even though you may say all the right things to your client/customer, if you have an attitude that says that the client/customer is simply a means to an end, it will eventually manifest itself in your service, policies, customer interactions and, by extension, your reviews, reputation and profits.

2. Focus on making your business the best it can be; in doing so, you set the bar exceptionally high for anyone who would seek to poach your clients/customers.

3. Always be better than the next guy. This should not, however, be your minimal goal. If you're focusing on point #2, you should already be excelling past this goal.

4. Never arrive. Never reach the point where you think your business is so well established that you can start slacking in the area of customer service.

5. Don't bad-mouth the competition. Not only does it make your business seem petty and immature, but it could have the reverse of the intended effect. There's a Hollywood saying that goes like this: "there's no such thing as bad publicity. All publicity is good publicity." By bad-mouthing your competition, you may actually pique your clients'/customers' interest in the competing product or service.

So there you have it, The "At Least I'm Not That Guy" Paradox. As always, the concept goes deeper than what appears on the surface. I'm sure that as time goes on business will evolve and some of the more intricate aspects of this post may begin to lose their relevance, but the one thing never goes out of style is good customer service.

It Started With A Donut

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 06 Jul 2013 04:39:00 +0000

It's been quite a while since I posted something here, so I guess I'm probably overdue. I graduated in March and took a while to decompress from all things business, but I've recently taken notice of a trend in the business world that must be addressed. Now I have no delusions that my little blog post will change the business practices of any fortune 500 company, and that's kind of the point. I would much rather see it read by small business entrepreneurs, and used to make their businesses better.

The Evil Corporation

Everyone likes to blame large corporations for the demise of small businesses; I was once counted among this group. If given the choice, I would much rather give my business to a mom-and-pop establishment than to frequent their gargantuan competition. As of late, I've been making an attempt to do this, but I often seem to run into a problem. To illustrate my quandary, I'll simply recall my recent experience trying to find a good donut shop.

The Search Begins

So I recently moved to a moderately sized city with a fairly large population (Approx. 600,000) as well as a significant military presence. Given these factors, I thought that I should surely be able to find a good donut shop somewhere in the area. So I did what most people do when they want to find something, I took a short trip over to my favorite food-finding app and provided the pertinent information. The results were less than promising. I found not one prospect with over an 81% approval rating, which might be okay if you were talking about a politician, but isn't so great when you're talking about something you're going to put in your mouth.

Putting the Taste to the Test

At this point, I decided to just throw caution to the wind and get some first-hand experience with these donut places; I mean after all, I suppose it's possible that the reviews were completely inaccurate. So the first place I went to was fairly easy to make my judgement call on; primarily because it wasn't there. If the other prospects had presented any greater of a web presence, or had any better reviews, I may have opted to visit them first; which highlights my point. All of my prospective donut shops had mediocre reviews, and virtually no web presence.

A Tasting We Will Go

So now it's on to the next prospect; which I'm happy to report was actually where my urban dining app said it would be. This place was actually a worse experience than that of the first prospect. When I walked through the door my senses were assaulted by an aroma that smelled like a combination of cigarette smoke, ancient egyptian incense, and a poorly maintained lavatory. Now at this point, I know what you're thinking. You probably suspect that I immediately turned around and headed out of the establishment, and if we were talking about anything other than donuts you might be right. In the interest of giving the place a chance, I ordered simply a glazed donut. I figure there is virtually no way that any respectable donut shop can mess up a simple glazed donut. Let's just say this wasn't a respectable donut shop. Apparently this donut shop's idea of a glazed donut is a cold hard puck that has absorbed the putrid essence of the establishment from which it originates. Needless to say, I was done with this donut shop. Now across town, there resides another shop under the title and branding of the same franchise. In hindsight, I probably should have learned my lesson from the first location, but my thought process was that I'd been to other locations of the exact same franchise while I resided south of the Mason-Dixon line, and had been impressed with the results. That was not the case at this location. In fact, my experience at the second location was almost identical to the first location. I could go on, but honestly after this the explanations become a bit redundant. Every shop I attempted to visit was either nonexistent, or virtually as terrible as the first shop.

The Value of Competition

So where's the breakdown here? I've pondered on these experiences fairly regularly over the last few months and I think I may have come to a realization. The lack of any competition means that the donut shops in this area don't really have to try. When you think about it, if you're the only person selling water in the middle of the Sahara, but your water tastes like sewerage, you're still gonna rake it in. In my opinion, this concept cuts across various brands and industries, but in the interest of avoiding any lawsuits, I'll simply stick to my intentionally brand-free coffee and donut example.

And on the Subject of Coffee...

I, like many other Earthlings, am a huge fan of coffee, and more specifically, of a national brand of coffee that has become almost universally ubiquitous (universally meaning everywhere in the known universe). I'll use this as another example. In the exact same city, there is a local coffee brand that's on the rise. This coffee company has a handful of locations in the city, but they seem to be rapidly expanding, and I see their marketing material all over the city, their bumper stickers on the vehicles of their adoring fans, and I've even had a couple people tell me how great they are and that I should give them a try. Although I usually avoid change at all costs, I finally caved and gave the coffee joint a try. After having visited the small drive-thru only coffee shop, it was easy to understand why so many people are fans. Purely in the interest of research, I returned a couple days later at a different time of day to ensure that I got the same level of service. It was almost remarkable. Both times the personnel were knowledgable, courteous, and professional. I say remarkable because I almost never seem to get this level of service in the city in which I live, but this further goes to emphasize my point. In the case of the donut shop, there is no large competition to threaten the horrible excuses for donut shops in the local area. By contrast, the coffee landscape is completely different. My favorite universal coffee company is one that prides itself on consistency and excellent customer service. Any small company who wants to compete with that must, at very least, match the level and quality of service of their competitor. This means that they can't simply take a "good enough" approach to their products. Every single customer interaction must be so memorable and flawless that their potential customer base has no desire to return to their competitor, otherwise they will lose that valuable business that is the lifeblood for any fledgling entrepreneurial venture.

So What Am I Saying?

As evil as many large corporations may seem, they get as large as they do for a reason. Generally, they put forth a better effort to give the people what they want. There are certain not-so-isolated cases in which large corporations have used their financial wherewithal and influence to crush smaller competitors outside of the normal confines of the law, but I firmly believe that when everyone is on a level playing field (and by this I mean acting within the confines of the law) there is no reason that a smaller competitor cannot maintain and even grow their business within their specifically chosen niche despite the presence of a gargantuan competitor. The problems arise when small business fail to realize that the expenses associated with marketing, advertisement, and excellent customer service are investments and not costs. I personally believe that when a business makes an earnest effort to ensure that every single patron feels that they've been treated with respect, and have gotten value for their investment, customer loyalty will be one aspect of the business that they need not concern themselves with. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a grad student in search of a good donut.

You mean there are rules in business???

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 23:53:00 +0000

Lately, I’ve been contemplating the idea of going into business for myself. With that in mind, one of my primary concerns is actually being successful with said business venture. There is no shortage of statistics that highlight the fact that many new business fail shortly after their foundation. Given this fact, it would seem wise to perform research into what business practices yield the greatest amounts of long-term success.

Customer service is becoming ever more important in today’s business landscape. Consumer reports agencies have begun to regularly assess the customer service aspects of large players in virtually every industry. In addition, the results of these assessments are very public, and can drive customer volume for those companies that rate best. This seems to indicate that customer service is important to the modern consumer as well. While there are still some companies that take the approach of providing the lowest quality product or service that will still sell, many are coming to the realization that customer loyalty must be earned, and is essential to repeat and new business.

Given these two facts, it stands to reason that one of the best ways for new business owners to ensure that they are not counted among the statistics of failed new businesses is to provide exceptional customer service. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the customer is always right, but I will say that customer-facing policies and interactions should certainly be consistent, fair, and ethical. This raises an important point. It’s no secret that corporate corruption is rampant within America.

By operating in an ethical and consumer-centric manner, companies not only avoid legal troubles but also create a positive image of their business. In general, people want to give their business to companies that they feel they can trust. When your company is receiving bad press for corrupt or unethical business practices, it is hard to repair that image. In addition, customer service is it’s own advertisement. When a customer has a bad experience with a company, they will not only tell people about it, but some will even berate and proactively lobby against a company. In contrast, when a customer has a good experience they will share this information as well. Customers usually won’t promote this information as actively as they would if they’d had a bad experience, but this is to be expected. There are far too many people who believe they should get kudos for doing what they should be doing anyway.

So in the end, it turns out that one of the best things any business owner can do is to abide by the golden rule of business. While this may not be some great revelation or elaborate business tactic, it is just as important. When you treat your customers as you would want to be treated, unhappy customers are one less thing you have to worry about.

The Why of Business

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:06:00 +0000

So, the time is almost here everyone. I'll be graduating early next

month with my Masters of Entertainment Business Degree. Throughout this course I've learned about the business of artist management, the business of intellectual property, and the business of finance just to name a few. Regardless of the context, the primary focus of my degree program has been on business.

I can recall that prior to beginning this program, I had to be convinced to do so by my wonderful girlfriend of almost two years. At that time, I had no desire to pursue a business degree, because I didn't want to spend my professional career wading through a deluge of endless paperwork. I didn't (and still don't) really like politics. My idea of a great career would be sitting behind a recording console turning knobs (or encoders / VCA's if you're nerdy) until the audio was just perfect. What I've realized throughout this course, is that without sound business skills, it may be possible to get that kind of job, but it won't be on your own terms. Proper business discipline empowers one to break the chains of financial slavery, and live the life they desire to (see my last post for more on this).

So there you have it. That's my reason for wanting to attain a level of business savvy. But what about everyone else. As anyone who's seen an interview with a successful CEO, or a business documentary knows, many of these people never need to work another day in their lives. Once an individual has reached a certain level of financial success and stability, work is no longer a requirement. At this point, it's a choice. So why do so many successful and intelligent business professionals choose to continue working despite having achieved financial independence and security? The answers to this question are as varied as the individuals to whom they relate.

There are some business heads who continue to operate in business because they have a mission. These individuals are truly a rarity in a culture which seems to celebrate greed, and a lust for power. These individuals press on because they are driven by a mission; usually a mission to improve society for the greater good. This is admirable. The fact that an individual is willing to give up their free time, and early retirement simply because they feel a responsibility to follow through with the good that they know they can do is commendable. This is, however, only one of the driving factors which could potentially motivate a wealthy business owner to persist in their industry.

It's no secret that some of the wealthiest individuals in history were also some of the most corrupt. The idea of modern labor unions originated as the result of one businessman's greed, and refusal to provide reasonable compensation and safe work conditions for those under his employ. What's really sad is the fact that he succeeded in his endeavors. So in this case, we have the greedy businessman who continues to compete simply due to a perpetually unfulfilled desire to continue acquiring more, no matter the cost.

The last example is the businessman who simply enjoys the competitive nature of it. Now, I personally feel this is tantamount to that couple that argues simply because they enjoy the argument. It may be fun for awhile, but eventually someone says something that goes a little too far, and then feelings are hurt and collateral damage is done. Regardless of my own personal opinion, there are several innovations and advancements that would not have taken place without the shrewd determination of a competitive businessman. This trend doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon. There is no shortage of resources for current and prospective businessmen hoping to crush their competition into dust. Whether this is a means to an end, or the end itself will be based on the particular businessman.

Now, there will be exceptions to every rule, but most businessmen will fall into some combination of the above categories. One important thing to realize when dealing with businessmen, or people in general, is that understanding their "why" is a great way to determine how to deal with their individual personality. No two people are the same, but instead of interacting with the intent to polarize an individual, it would be wise to instead seek common ground with everyone. Even if a person's characteristics are unpalatable, there will always be some common ground that can provide the first steps toward open communication and cooperation.

Personal Finance... As a Business Plan

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:04:00 +0000

In only two days, one of the largest sports events in the country will be broadcast in more American homes than perhaps any other program. (In honor of this, I've made available my soon to be famous wing recipe) Whenever these types of events take place, I get nostalgic over how this type of events is related to my bachelors degree, and how much it reminds me of the many entertainment industry courses I have taken.

As I approach the end of my journey as a Full Sail student, I find myself reflecting upon all of the things I have learned during my education. I've met people from various locations and all walks of life. I've learned technical disciplines and pertinent life lessons. However, out of all of the things I've learned during my tenure at Full Sail University, one of the most important lessons I absorbed was how not to be a slave to finances. This is a concept that those in positions to approve business loans, plans, and investments have firmly grasped.

In my previous blog post, I talked about angel investors. This post highlighted the opposing points of view of two financial experts. Although these two experts don't necessarily agree on the profitability of angel investment, they do agree that no investor will invest without being assured of a reasonable chance of success and a return on their investment. To this end, I believe it would be wise to keep this information in mind whenever building future business plans. To have the best chances of a favorable response to any business plan, it is imperative to display the profitability of the venture in question.

One change this information has prompted within my own business plan, is the provision of extreme detail concerning how the company intends to be profitable. Although I intend to provide a summarized version of the information contained within the business plan, any serious investor will want intricate details on company operations, management structure, and profit projections. This information (or the lack thereof) could make or break the acceptance of a business plan.

Overall, this is a lesson that applies not just in business but also in personal finances. The same care with which one would plan business financial decisions and carefully craft a business plan should be applied to personal finances as well. Approaching personal finances from this perspective can help individuals avoid the traps that keep so many people bound in financial slavery.

The Venture Capital Argument

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:00:00 +0000

I was once completely oblivious to the complex web of financial connections and infrastructure that takes place every day within this country. Sadly, it wasn’t until I had completely shipwrecked my finances that I gained an interest in learning how this system works. My business finance course greatly aided me in this endeavor. During the process of that class, the curriculum briefly touched on the idea of an angel investor. I had heard the term thrown around in financial circles before, but I had no real understanding of what this concept meant. To this end, I decided to research what angel investment is and how it works.

What I find to be completely hilarious is the fact that upon typing “angel investment” into my favorite search engine, the first two results that caught my attention were two published articles arguing the exact opposite opinions concerning angel investment. What I found even more amusing was the fact that these articles were from the same web resource, and one of the authors even referenced the other’s work in support of his own opposing argument.

The first article I stumbled upon was written by Wealthfront President and CEO Andy Rachleff. In this article, Mr. Rachleff alleges that angel investors don’t really make any money. He comes to this conclusion based upon his extensive experience in the venture capital business. Mr. Rachleff explains that 3% of venture capital firms create 95% of the venture capital industry’s returns. Due to the scale and financial wherewithal of these corporations, it stands to reason that they would have access to proprietary investment tips and information, as well as many years of experience choosing winning businesses. He goes on to explain that venture capital firms tend to prefer investment opportunities with high technical risk and low market risk. Mr. Rachleff asserts that market risk is what causes companies to fail. This model promotes the idea of searching for companies that are highly likely to succeed if they can actually deliver on what they say they will. But if the business world has taught us anything, it’s that no formula for success is a formula for success. I can almost guarantee that most investors or firms who lost substantial amounts in the market were operating on what they considered to be tried and true techniques,and they certainly didn’t see it coming. In my experience, most large firms minimize their losses by erring on the side of caution. The difference is that their vast resources create a more acceptable margin for risk than that of smaller investment entities. In addition, Mr. Rachleff is strictly comparing large venture capital firms to smaller venture capital firms. This somewhat mitigates his assertion that angel investors don’t make any money. Many angel investors are self-made, and have much more to lose by making bad investments. In addition, they generally have developed skills and instincts that are not present in a typical venture capital firm.

On the opposing side of the argument is Robert Wiltbank; PhD. Mr. Wiltbank is a professor at Willamette University. In addition, he runs an angel investment firm with second year MBA students, as well as being on the board of The Angel Resource Institute. Dr.Wiltbank asserts that angel investors do, in fact, make money. His argument is that most angel investors are seasoned entrepreneurs, and that the character qualities necessary to become independently wealthy through their own efforts give them an edge when it comes to choosing which investment opportunities have the best chances of success. In addition, Dr. Wiltbank asserts that angel investors tend to invest and build companies with a wider variety of strategies than do venture capitalists, thus allowing them to exploit opportunities that are often missed by larger investment entities. Dr. Wiltbank bases his assertions on the recent Kauffman Foundation Angel Returns Study as well as the NESTA Angel Investing Study. The results of these two studies seem to bare out the fact that strategic angel investors actually have a better margin of returns than venture capital firms. Adding to the statistics provided by the above sources is the Angel Resource Institute's quarterly HALO report, which provides information on US investor activity. This report seems to indicate that the diversity and widespread nature of angel investors give them a bit of an edge on the venture capitalists, which tend to be highly localized.

Overall, the running theme that both of these writers seem to agree on is that no investment is a sure thing. Any investment carries a certain amount of risk with it, and investors would do well to research any investment opportunity prior to proceeding.

The Pursuit of Entertainment; How Far is Too Far?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:17:00 +0000

It seems that the proliferation of explicit content has become commonplace in today's media. There are virtually no media outlets where rampant violence, sexual content, and explicit language isn't considered a necessary part of business as usual. I pose the question, is explicit content really necessary, and does it actually make media better?

Anyone who's watched the progression of television over the last decade can attest to the fact that programming has become ever more edgy. Popular programs such as Supernatural, Nip/Tuck, and Family Guy continue to push the envelope in reference to what is an acceptable amount of violence, sexual content, and adult humor. There was a time when this type of content could only be seen on premium channels with appropriate R ratings. That time seems to be ancient history. Explicit content can now be seen on virtually every locally broadcast channel available.

Given these factors, I really wonder if this content is what the public is demanding, or if this is simply what the media establishment has chosen to supply. In today's society, it is obvious that mainstream media has an immense impact on the majority of the general population.

So how much power does the general population have over the television that is being broadcast into their home every week; and conversely, how much power does the media have over the homes to which it is broadcasting? It's no secret that the system by which television ratings are assessed is drastically flawed. This directly translates to an inaccurate measurement of what the population actually wants to see. How many times has a television program been cancelled to the dismay of a loyal fan-base? I can personally recall this occurring at least thrice in my lifetime. With this in mind, how much of the American population would actually be as enthralled as they currently are with the explicit content present in mainstream media if it weren't so heavily promoted?

Broadcast media such as television and radio is unique when compared with other forms of media such as music, movies, and video games. With the latter three forms of media, the public interest can be directly assessed through unit sales. If an album goes platinum, it's apparent that the public had enough interest in the product to purchase one million copies of it. The same holds true for video games and movies. The same does not hold true for television and radio. These two media outlets are primarily driven by advertising dollars and popular opinion within their respective professional communities. While it is true that many of the entities who are purchasing advertisement through these media outlets perform market research, this is another case where a drop of water is being used to assess the entire ocean. Does a portion of the population's obsession with obscene language, graphic violence, and sexually explicit content automatically indicate that this is the preference of the general population, or is this simply a case of the establishment telling the people what they should desire?

I recently stumbled upon an article from Variety addressing a small portion of this very issue.
When taking into account the proliferation of obscene language, violence, and sexually explicit content in today's media, is it any wonder that modern society has so degraded from what it once was. I'll be the first to admit that our progress in civil rights, equality, and technological advancement is commendable. When looking at the state of modern media, though, it seems that whenever there is progress there will inevitably be digress.

Is Humor The X-Factor?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 01:16:00 +0000

There was a time when advertisements simply served the purpose of informing the customer that a product or service was available. Billboards and print ads simply stated what the product or service was, what it’s function was, and occasionally where you could find it.

Gone are the golden years of simple advertisement. Advertising budgets have skyrocketed during the last few decades, primarily due to the prevalence and aggressiveness of market competition. This holds true for virtually all industries. Most corporations have immense advertising budgets based on the idea that the more visible a brand is to a potential customer, the greater the effect of the advertising. Although this trend is beginning to change a bit with the advent of social media, many advertisers are continuing to follow the established advertising trend.

One thing that has become more popular recently is the use of comedy in advertising. It seems that more and more commercials and print ads are utilizing a comedic hook to catch the attention of consumers. This may have some relation to the fact that our society has become more and more geared towards social interaction. To this end, it is possible that companies hope to display a more social and personally invested image than that of the faceless corporations of yesteryear. This transition has been much to the benefit of those entities engaging in humorous advertisement.

While pondering the success of humor in advertising, I found myself wondering how this effect spilled over into other facets of business. Almost everyone has known that person who has great career success despite their markedly absent career aptitude, simply due to a moderately quick wit, comedic timing, and a willingness to make an edgy and borderline inappropriate comment. It is entirely possible that an individuals ability to be funny simply makes them seem more relatable and disarming in a business setting, which grants them upward latitude that the rest of us may be inhibited from. In addition, appropriate comedic timing may be an effect of an underlying ability to read people. This could indicate a much farther reaching aptitude than would be evident initially. Whatever the case, it is apparent that comedy and humor is something that, in moderation, can have a positive effect across the board.

Good Food, Better Entertainment

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 03:55:00 +0000

Americans seem to be in love with food. I have personally said on various occasions that one of my favorite four letter "f" words is food. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'm in love with food, but we're definitely very close friends. Food (like music, see my previous post) is everywhere. Believe it or not, there are actually people in this country who will not go to a movie unless they can accompany it with popcorn, candy, and an extra large Icee on the side. Given this state of the union, it's not a surprise that America has stopped growing vertically, and begun to grow horizontally. As tempting as it is to veer off and diagnose this increase in American waistlines, the purpose of this post is to take a look at food's role in entertainment.

Recently, food television has seen a steady increase in popularity. Shows such as Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives, Good Eats, and Man vs. Food have captured a segment of viewership that tends to find the majority of reality tv loathsome. Many modern food programs no longer follow the traditional cooking show format, but rather, they take viewers on a journey of various different food experiences, complete with factual information and humorous commentary to boot. This has been a winning strategy for food aficionados everywhere. Food television has become so popular that it has even begun to permeate pop culture.

The popularity of food television has spilled out beyond simply visual entertainment. Food television has begun to change how people interact and build relationships through food related enthusiasm. At some point during food television's resurgence in popularity, people realized that there were other people who were as passionate about various different foods as they were. This realization spurred on more food-based interaction in formats ranging from local food competitions, interactive mobile applications, and even food blogs. In addition, this means that more people are talking about food in detail in social settings. Food found in social settings is even getting better as a result of the popularity of better ingredients. Food seems to be at the center of events from birthdays, to weddings, to funerals, and if the quality of our food is any indication, quality of American life is getting better as well.

One of the more positive ramifications of the popularity of food television, is that more Americans are becoming aware of the availability of healthy food options, as well as the consequences of unhealthy eating. When watching food programming, it is fairly common to hear a television personality preach the gospel of whole grains, organic fruits and vegetables, and even grass fed livestock or free range poultry. As these items become more ubiquitous and increase in demand, it is possible that food television could effectively improve the diets of Americans everywhere. While this isn't a silver-bullet solution for the obesity problems in America (moderation is) it is a step in the right direction.

Music: The Universal Therapy

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 01:51:00 +0000

One of the biggest turning points in my life was when I took a critical listening course during my bachelors program. I learned during this class, that music is one of the only experiences in life that affects all aspects of the brain simultaneously. When I discovered this, I immediately made the correlation of music to the way that individuals behave.

I personally feel that, to a large degree, many of us fail to realize the relevance and effect of music on our society. There is almost nothing we experience in our day-to-day life that does not contain some sort of soundtrack. From commercials, to movies, to even our shopping experience, every aspect of our life is inundated with accompanying music and would seem oddly silent without it. In addition, almost all of us tend to link specific memories to specific music. It is amazing how simply replaying a song from one's adolescence can conjure up memories of a moment of triumph, heartbreak, or even that girl you had a crush on in the tenth grade.

It only stands to reason, then, that music would be the perfect vehicle to facilitate healing when utilized properly. Music therapy is an established health profession, and to this end there is even an American Music Therapy Association. So then, this raises the question of how important music really is. It's psychological effects have been well studied and documented, and it has even been proven to improve plant growth (now if we could just get those farmers to get on board with this).

Overall, it seems that the therapeutic effects of music are definitely worth investigating further in the future. Our understanding of the human mind is at it's infancy, and as such, we are bound to find more evidence of the positive psychological effects of music, as well as better ways to apply this knowledge. So in light of this evidence, everyone should feel better about keeping those i-devices blasting the hits. It's actually good for you.

Entertainment Law Podcast Reviews

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 21 Oct 2012 23:52:00 +0000

Week 4 Industry Expert Blog Assignment

For this blog post, I'll be reviewing three different podcasts on the subjects of law, entertainment, technology, and the intermingling of those topics.

This podcast is part of a series on intellectual property law presented by Cambridge University’s Center for Intellectual Property and Information Law. In this podcast, the speaker, Nic Garnet, basically gives a bit of background on recent advancements in technology, and how different media industries have attempted to stay ahead of the technology curve and protect their interests. The speaker gave personal insight as one of the legal participants as the music and film industries attempted to develop rights management technologies to ensure that copyright owners were adequately compensated for the use of their copyrighted material. The speaker closed by describing how digital rights management (DRM) came to be, how it enabled the Apple Corporation to gain such a large share of their market, and how public dissatisfaction led to it’s undoing. At the conclusion of this podcast, it is apparent that copyright protection and rights management are still relevant issues that have not yet reached a point of resolution.

Entertainment Law and Challenges of Celebrity

The next podcast I am reviewing is entitled Entertainment Law and Challenges of Celebrity. This podcast is produced by Lawyer2Lawyer Law News and Legal Topics. The participants in this blog are Bob Ambrogi and Gordon Firemark. In this podcast, Mr. Firemark spoke of some of the issues that amateur and professional content creators encounter in the process of creating new forms of media such as blogs, podcasts, websites, and even Youtube videos. He described how many content creators are unaware of what can be considered copyright infringement, and as a result, often find themselves in legal hot water due to their ignorance. In addition, Mr. Firemark spoke of some of the recent celebrity fiascos that have made the rounds in mass media. He spoke of how life in the public eye can emphasize the flaws of celebrities. Another intriguing point made during the course of the podcast was the fact that most celebrity employment contracts no longer contain morality clauses as a general procedure, but may included them if actors are a behavioral or insurance risk to the employer. Overall, this is an intriguing podcast, which gives an insiders perspective on the world of entertainment law in relation to celebrities.

Aligning Incentives With Reality

The final podcast I have chosen to review is a selection from the intellectual property scholars conference at Paul University. This particular podcast is presented by Ms. Lydia Loren, and expounds upon the subject of aligning incentives with reality. Ms. Loren began the podcast by emphasizing the fact that she once found herself mad at the pope. She began to explain that her reason for being mad was the fact that the Catholic Church was claiming copyright over certain catholic documents including Catholic Church documents and content created during the process of Catholic Church services. She stated that the idea of restricting the use of these documents would prevent their pervasion among the population, which would seem to be opposed to the overreaching goals of the Catholic Church. In addition, The Vatican has threatened to sue publishers and reporters who infringe upon these alleged copyrights. Ms. Loren asserts that the Pope (and by extension the Catholic Church) does not need copyrights. She continues by saying that she believes that there are other creative documents that do not need copyright protection in order to provide an incentive to create them. Some of the types of works she believes to fall into this category are things such as e-mail messages, legal building codes, personal photography, advertising, etc. She then says that these creations are not created for the exclusive compensation benefit associated with copyrights; however, all of these types of creations are eligible for copyright protection under current law. In what I believe to be an insightful epiphany, Ms. Loren states that many copyright cases and threats of copyright cases are more motivated by personal privacy concerns than market based concerns. She states that these types of concerns would be much better served by trademarks or certification marks. Ms. Loren asserts that changing the scope of protection for different categories of copyrighted works would ease the financial and opportunity cost burden of the current copyright system on the general public. Overall, this is an entertaining and thought provoking podcast, which points out some flaws in the current copyright system and offers some potential solutions.

Industry Liabilities Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 03:05:00 +0000

The first incident I’ll choose to address is the recent issue surrounding The Beach Boys. Now, anyone who’s seen CNN lately is probably aware that the legendary rock band is on the verge of a breakup – again. What many people may not know is why. According to Spin, during the late 90’s there was a series of litigation, which culminated in band member, Mike Love, owning the rights to The Beach Boys name. Recently, Love has decided to exercise his rights and tour without the remaining band members. At the conclusion of the current 50-year anniversary tour, he will be continue to perform as “The Beach Boys,” but will do so with a completely new lineup. From the outside looking in, one might view Mike Love’s action as disloyal and divisive but regardless of his motivations, it is possible that this course of action may allow the Beach Boys to transcend the personas of the individual band members. This unfortunate turn of events could lead to The Beach Boys having longevity similar to that of the Temptations.

Next on this list is infamous rock drummer, Motley Crue’s Tommy Lee. In this case, a Los Angeles engineer is suing the group for allegedly stealing his idea for a 360° rotating drum rig. According to TMZ, an engineer named Scott King sent Motley Crue’s legal team a cease and desist letter concerning this issue. The letter alleged that Mr. King had approached Tommy Lee twenty years earlier with the idea for the rotational drum rig. The engineer now claims that he’s entitled to some sort of monetary compensation. The big question in this case will be whether the engineer has a patent on this idea. The old adage is that the law isn’t about what really happened, but what can be proven. If this engineer actually has a patent on this idea, then he stands a much greater chance of winning this case (if this case actually goes to trial). If he doesn’t, then his assertion that Tommy Lee stole his idea will be much harder to prove. Unlike copyrights, patents aren’t automatic. Even if his idea was made tangible prior to the idea being stolen, this may not be enough to convince a jury that the idea was stolen. Even if the idea was stolen, does it really matter if the idea wasn’t patented? Stealing an unpatented idea certainly is unethical, but unless it’s a trade secret with applicable non-disclosure agreements, there isn’t much that can be done about it.

For the last incident, we’ll address the curious case of the ever-ubiquitous Mr. Kanye West. In this particular exploit, Mr. West is being sued for copyright infringement – yes, again. In this particular case, he is being sued by Mr. Robert Poindexter. For those who are unaware, Mr. Poindexter is part of a writing team responsible for numerous soul songs, and their subsequent modern derivatives. One of these songs was a single from 1972 entitled, “Trying Girls Out.” According to Rolling Stone, Mr. Poindexter is seeking $500,000 in damages for Mr. West’s sampling of the single on a mixtape recently released. What makes this case even more interesting is the fact that Mr. West sampled the same song on track he produced earlier in his career. The difference is that Mr. West had the proper clearance to perform this earlier sampling. Now, I should probably point out the fact that many who would consider themselves part of the hip-hop culture will have a very different view of this act than those who are part of the legal community, or even those who understand copyright law. Many in the hip-hop community feel that sampling is just part of business as usual, and even more feel that sampling is acceptable if it is for mixtape use. Anyone who understands copyright law knows that copyright holders have the right to determine who can and can’t derive from and distribute their work. It’s a simple as that. If this issue ends up going to court, Mr. West is already in a bad position. The fact that he sampled the same track earlier in the proper manner doesn’t make his situation look any better. Unless there is a clause in the original sampling contract that allows for subsequent samples, expect this to go in the favor of the plaintiff. The major question is, does Mr. West even care. For someone who has a net worth of $90 million dollars, it is entirely possible that he makes so much money that copyright law is a non-factor for him. It’s even more probable that the collateral damage caused by his lack of wisdom will create more publicity than the mixtape itself could on it’s own. In my opinion, this was either an excellent example of professional oversight, or a calculated move to create publicity. Either way, this can serve as a good lesson for those with eyes to see it.

The Rights and Responsibility of Media

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 04:28:00 +0000

News You Need To Know

As anyone who’s turned on the news in the last three days will tell you, media is a powerful force in the world today. It seems as if the news has transitioned from being a provider of responsible and factual information, and has instead sought to present the news of the day in as sensational and entertaining a manner as possible. It would be naïve to deny that sometimes news can be entertaining, but this is not supposed to be it’s primary function. I once spoke to a veteran news radio personality, and he defined news as information that is relevant to the listener/reader/watcher. What I find so amusing about modern news is the absurd amount of information broadcast that has no real relevance to the lives of the general population.

The Problem With the Press

There was a time in this country when being a member of the news industry meant you were someone of respectable standing. News personalities were intelligent, investigative, and dedicated to utilizing our freedom of press to the greater benefit of the people. Things have obviously changed. We now live in the era when some of the best words to describe the news industry would be cynical, ruthless, cantankerous, and the like. I can distinctly recall Operation Iraqi Freedom from the perspective of a member of the US Armed Forces. I can recall how troubling it was to hear the news media report intricate details of military operations and troop movements. Many people would say that this should be blamed on the military, but the fact is that the news agencies are researchers and investigators by trade. Much information can be accumulated by reporters embedded with military units as well as those on site at international crises. I am fully in support of the freedom of press, as well as all of the other freedoms that myself and many other veterans swore to protect and defend from enemies both foreign and domestic. I do, however, feel that individuals, and especially citizens of this great country in which we reside, have a responsibility to think about the consequences of their actions. The ruthless dedication of news media to being the first to report, and doing so under the guise of “the people deserve to know” is problematic at best, and deadly at worst. As we’ve seen in recent days, the danger associated with this abuse of our freedoms often comes at great cost.

Do Unto Others

When we look at the recent controversy surrounding the so-called film, “The Innocence of Muslims,” the obvious first question to enter the minds of most creative individuals would be, “Who thought this was a good idea?” The reason for this wouldn’t be simply because of the controversial nature of the subject matter, but more because of how undeniably terrible the production is. Any of my instructors encountered during the pursuit of my bachelors would have most certainly given this project a failing grade.

Beyond that, though, one must ask themselves what the purpose of a venture like this would be? Americans have increasingly become a society of people who want their rights to be respected at the expense of our fellow countrymen. What I would ask of the orchestrators of this film would be if they considered how disrespectful it would be perceived by even another American citizen who happened to be Muslim. I don’t think anything is wrong with exercising your freedoms, but when did it become acceptable to disrespect the freedom of those around us. I am a proud Christian, but just because one of my classmates isn’t doesn’t mean they deserve any less respect. I feel that this film is one of the grandest expressions of our lack of concern of how our actions affect those around us. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that government imposed censorship is the answer, nor do I believe that the international response this film has created is justified. I do, however, think that each individual citizen should exercise some responsibility in exercising our rights. When I took high school civics my instructor explained to us that we all have freedom of speech, but if someone yells “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and causes a stampede, that individual would certainly be arrested in the aftermath. So many people think of our freedoms as simply rights owed to us, but too few of us realize that our freedom is also a responsibility. We have an obligation to act in a manner that is decent, prudent, and most importantly, won’t endanger the lives of our fellow countrymen. The same level of patriotism and national pride that made us so supportive and protective of our international athletes just one month ago, should be one of the motivating factors that dictate to us whether in exercising our rights, we are doing so with responsibility.

What happened to all the merch???

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 07:13:00 +0000

The old saying goes that those who forget the past are bound to repeat it. While I don't really consider myself a history buff, I certainly make an effort to stay ahead of the curve by knowing from whence we came and thereby knowing where we're going. It seems, though, that I've begun to slack in this area. I recently experienced something somewhat surprising and fairly terrible as a result of not doing my due diligence in this area.

I recently downloaded a mixtape from a relatively unknown artist (no this isn't the terrible part, just stay with me). I was fairly impressed by the material this artist had put forth, and due to his regular promotion of his up and coming album throughout the mixtape, I decided to look it up and purchase it. Now I was once told by legendary mastering engineer Herb Powers to get my ears accustomed to hearing high quality audio, so at every given opportunity I will purchase traditional CD's just to get the music in a lossless format. This allows you to hear the audio the form closest to what the engineers had in mind while producing it. Here is where the problem comes in. After some quick web-searching, I found out that the album was available on iTunes. Upon making my way over to the world's favorite source of music, I had the sickening recollection that iTunes does not support downloads of lossless audio. I can't describe how much of a let-down this was.

At this point I was faced with the decision of what to do next. Instead of getting all flustered, or writing a stern letter to someone at the Apple corporation who has little if any effect on this issue, I decided to go right to the source. I did a bit more googling, and found the artists social networking information. I figured that since the artist is a relative unknown, he probably keeps tabs on his social networking accounts. Well, this wasn't the case. It is months later and I still haven't heard anything back. What's worse is that there doesn't appear to be any available avenues for purchasing the album in the good old fashioned drink-coaster form. What happened to all the tangible merchandise?

While this may be an over-dramatized (and over-convoluted) explanation of one man's struggle to find a niche item, it symbolizes to me, an issue with much more far reaching implications. It seems like we are becoming a society that has all but lost it's appreciation for physical media. There was a time when the physical media was an artist's bread and butter. Whenever you heard an album you really liked, the first comment was, "Man, I'm going down to Sam Goody (yes, I'm old enough to remember Sam Goody) and pick that up."Nowadays, it's not quite so easy. It's almost impossible for an unknown artist to get an album on the shelves of their local retail establishment, because those channels are all but closed to them (but that's another blog post). Given this climate, it makes sense that most media would begin making the transition to a digital landscape. The sheer overhead of running a duplication operation, or even outsourcing the task to someone else can be quite a factor to contend with, and can drastically affect any operating entertainment entity's profit ratio. Despite this fact, it seems like there's an inherent danger in moving all media to a digital environment. Not only does it make it more difficult for audiophiles like myself to acquire high quality audio (yet again, another blog post), but it increases the possibility of losing our history.

Imagine for a moment, what would happen if we were to have a digital day-of-black-sun. The theory has been repeatedly confirmed by some of the most intelligent individuals academia has to offer. I experienced a small simulation of just what this would be like fairly recently. While researching a class project, I realized that searching for older information on Google is near to impossible. Imagine losing all of the information that is currently stored "in the cloud." Not only would we lose access to countless accounts of who said what to who on what lame reality show, but much of our cultural and musical history would be inaccessible. Ok, so maybe I'm being slightly dramatic. I'm sure that most recording studios and record labels have the masters of all that stuff locked away in some bomb-proof safe, but think about it. The world is getting smaller as the population gets larger, and that's only making space more expensive. How long will it be before we fully intertwine the fate of historic records with that of the digital world we so fervently adore? I guess then that crazy guy you know who hordes cd's, cassettes, vinyl records, and 8-track tapes won't seem so crazy anymore. Ok, maybe he'll still seem crazy, but at least he'll be going crazy to a sound track.

Can I Dream?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:56:00 +0000

When I look around at the world, I see a place full of pain. I see multitudes of people who are tired, confused, and in search of answers. I see a population that has accepted the idea that the only way to achieve their dreams is by stifling the dreams of those around them. This saddens me. I’m distraught when I turn on the television and am bombarded with a constantly negative message. I’m troubled by the fact that every news outlet seems to highlight every depressing news story while conveniently overlooking the good that takes place in this world. I’m sickened by the fact that virtually all the music on the radio propagates a message of negativity. This is not only wrong, but it is negatively affecting our society as a whole. What kind of future can our kids expect when they are constantly being told that they’ll never accomplish their dreams? Where will we be 10 years if we continue to accept the negative assertion being preached to us that we would be happier if we just lived out our common cookie-cutter existences in submission to the status quo? I don’t know about you, but I’ve decided that somebody has to do something to change this and since I can’t control anyone but myself, that’s who I’m going to start with.

We all have something we excel at, but the mark that we leave on the world will ultimately be determined by what we choose to do with it. As for me, I’m choosing to use my gifts and talents to make the world a better place; to tell people that your end is not determined by your beginning. No matter who you are and where you come from, you have the power to make any dream you may have come true no matter how impossible it may seem; all it takes is a little faith. I dream of a world where the word “impossible” is replaced with “undiscovered;” a world where young people of every race, creed, color, nationality, background, and socio-economic status is ingrained from youth with the idea that they can achieve anything they set their minds to. This will be a world that cultivates creativity and individualism. In this world kids will grow into adults who will advance their reality beyond the wildest dreams of their predecessors; and all of this can start with the decision of a few people to decrease the negativity, increase the positivity, and work to make the world a better place. I’m making that decision. What about you?