Saturday, March 03, 2007
CBS Doesn't Want You Watching Their TV Shows
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Monday, December 11, 2006
I'm Back, For Now - Some Notes and Analysis
First, I want to apologize to all those whose comments sat in limbo for many many many (many, repeat ad nauseum) months. I haven't been checking in recently, and quite frankly, I forgot that comments were moderated. So. Apologies. A special thank you goes to Umbria Listens for their comment letting me know that my opinion does, in fact, mean something. Given their mission, it's at least a little comforting to know that somewhere, out there, in the bleak business world, an executive (or, more likely an over-paid middle manager) is reading a report that contains either: one of my blog posts, or, more likely, a higher number for the "this item was blogged about" category in their marketing reports.
Anyway. Today's post was instigated by a beer industry blog that I read. For those unaware, I've recently begun brewing my own beer and I am in the planning stages of maybe, possibly, if the stars align properly, trying to turn it into a small business. I've been looking around the web and I found a good blog, called Brew Blog (it's actually called "Brew" Blog - but I'm not really sure what the quotation marks add - I believe that it is, technically, some sort of attempt to reference their magazine, also called "brew" but retain the source identifying portion in some asinine attempt to gain trademark rights over the term "brew" for publications pertaining to the beer industry by using the same term in a "family of marks" style). I read it a few times a week. It is, technically, under the auspices of Miller Brewing Company, but they assure me that Miller doesn't actually have any editorial authority. That seems to be true, so I'll take their word for it. For now.
However, today's post makes it abundantly obvious that the author does work for the beer industry. It's a short post, and I'm going to reprint it for the purposes of commentary. The article is in color, my comments are not. Enjoy. My apologies in advance if I come off as some sort of jack ass.
A growing number of retailers are contemplating “clean store” policies as more displays clutter their aisles and annoy customers.
Good. Those huge Miller Football displays annoy the crap out of me. There's such a thing as a "display" then there's "setting up a small football field in the beer aisle."
My favorite part: best way to prevent bad consequences: "shift wine displays to beer." I should have guessed. I can't say how much I love this sentence. First of all because the semi-colon is my favorite punctuation mark, and this sentence has TWO of them. Second, for the idea that the very premise of the article was complaining that supermarkets want to get rid of displays; this sentence encourages them to not only that beer displays are the best idea in retail history, but that other displays should be gotten rid of and MORE beer displays allowed and those extra beer displays should be place outside of the beer section in other parts of the supermarket. Awesome.
Anyway. Today's post was instigated by a beer industry blog that I read. For those unaware, I've recently begun brewing my own beer and I am in the planning stages of maybe, possibly, if the stars align properly, trying to turn it into a small business. I've been looking around the web and I found a good blog, called Brew Blog (it's actually called "Brew" Blog - but I'm not really sure what the quotation marks add - I believe that it is, technically, some sort of attempt to reference their magazine, also called "brew" but retain the source identifying portion in some asinine attempt to gain trademark rights over the term "brew" for publications pertaining to the beer industry by using the same term in a "family of marks" style). I read it a few times a week. It is, technically, under the auspices of Miller Brewing Company, but they assure me that Miller doesn't actually have any editorial authority. That seems to be true, so I'll take their word for it. For now.
However, today's post makes it abundantly obvious that the author does work for the beer industry. It's a short post, and I'm going to reprint it for the purposes of commentary. The article is in color, my comments are not. Enjoy. My apologies in advance if I come off as some sort of jack ass.
Cutting Beer Displays Could Hurt Retailers
This sounds like a threat. Like what he really means is: if you cut beer displays my best friend Guido is going to show up and convince you otherwise.Displays have major impact on purchases behavior.
Interestingly, this is a true statement. What's even more interesting are the store gimmicks of displaying a "score" for the item and a quick "review" of the item from some industry source. This is popular with wine, and I've see some of it for beer. For example, you'll see "87. This wine pours a dark mahagony. It has a fruity, slightly acidic smell; but an oak aged taste that is guaranteed to impress your tastebuds. Brought to you by Winelover magazine." Apparently, people fall for these things all the time. Even people who know better. They use excuses like "it's nice to have more information." Ignoring the fact that the information comes from the source interested in selling you the product. It's sort of like believing GW when he tells you that the war is going well. It's amazing, and a sign of moderate competence in the marketing industry that everyone doesn't just give themselves 99's.A growing number of retailers are contemplating “clean store” policies as more displays clutter their aisles and annoy customers.
Good. Those huge Miller Football displays annoy the crap out of me. There's such a thing as a "display" then there's "setting up a small football field in the beer aisle."
While such a thinning could improve shopper satisfaction, retailers need to keep in mind the importance of displays for key categories – including beer. Rather than sweeping out all displays, retailers should maintain focus on critical categories to ensure efficient use of floor space.
This is one of my favorite lines: "... retailers need to keep in mind the importance of displays ..." Oh. Really. How important is that 20' by 20' space eater piled with 300 cases of Miller Beer? To the retailer? It seems to me that all it does, for the retailer, is eat up floor space that could otherwise be taken by other products, create an impediment for the consumer, and cause massive inventory pile-ups. It seems that the best thing for a retailer might actually be to reduce the amount of Miller (or A-B, or whatever) it sells and increase sales on products that actually have higher margins.
According to an analysis of ACNielsen research by Miller Brewing Company, 26 percent of beer sold in supermarkets is sold on display. By dollars that ranks after snacks and carbonated beverages.
Ummm...OK...I'm struggling with how this is "good for retailers." By reverse logic, 74 percent of beer is NOT sold on display. If there were no displays, 100 percent of beer would be sold NOT on display. So what? But, the more interesting thing that this sentence suggests is that they actually have some way of tracking how much is bought from a display. Think about it. You walk up to the counter with a case of Miller Lite. How does the counter know you took that off a display? Well. In one respect the answer is obvious: the barcode. But, how do they know that barcode was part of the display? Did the minimum wage lackey scan it in? Did Miller provide separate pallets and provide instructions that one pallet was to be only for display? And, if that's the case, they actually trusted the minimum wage lackeys to do it?!? You see my point.
Moreover, beer is the second biggest category in supermarkets in terms of weekly sales dollars per square foot of space, according to the consultancy Willard Bishop.
Reducing displays on high-traffic driving categories such as beer could weaken promotional sales lifts and exacerbate promotional out of stocks.
Huh? Ok. Beer is a traffic-driving category. This means that people don't need displays to remind them to buy beer. The display could influence the Miller/Bud decision, but what does the supermarket care? Moreover, how does reducing these displays weaken promotional sales? The people are already in the stores buying beer, they will, presumably, see the (less-monstrous) displays for the supermarket promotional products. Plus, beer isn't sold in grocery stores everywhere (like here in Wisconsin) so it's a non-factor. And how exactly reducing displays for beer would exacerbate promotional out of stocks is a question we will leave for contemplation in the great beyond.
My favorite part: best way to prevent bad consequences: "shift wine displays to beer." I should have guessed. I can't say how much I love this sentence. First of all because the semi-colon is my favorite punctuation mark, and this sentence has TWO of them. Second, for the idea that the very premise of the article was complaining that supermarkets want to get rid of displays; this sentence encourages them to not only that beer displays are the best idea in retail history, but that other displays should be gotten rid of and MORE beer displays allowed and those extra beer displays should be place outside of the beer section in other parts of the supermarket. Awesome.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Sometimes When You Win, You Really Lose.
I've tried to stay away from war topics, because I think it's all a bit preposterous, really. There's no legitimate debate because there is no legitimate information, and you can't have a legitimate debate without legitimate information. Supposedly some video exists that was made 5 years ago showing Bin Laden with (warning: convenient surprise ahead) the same guys that the US is now transporting to Guantanamo on (warning: convenient surprise ahead) the 5th anniversary of 911 for implementing the attacks. The fact that this video is just now surfacing raises a few questions: 1) where was it before; 2) who took it; 3) are those really the people who you are telling me they are; 4) was it really made five years ago or are you lying to me and you just made it last week so that you could show it to the American public to drum up support and evidence for a cause that you've been getting dragged through the mud on at a time that is shortly before general elections where you are probably going to get slaughtered at the polls because of your whole mishandling of the thing you are showing me? I'm not saying it's a fake - hell, I've never even seen the damn thing, I've just heard of it. All I'm saying is that time and time again there are pretty amazing coincidences that show up right around the time that ol' Gee Dubya steps in front of a television camera. But that's not really the point of this post. I'm just pointing out that the information we are supposed to debate is not entirely reliable and therefore the debate is kind of pointless and why I've stayed away from really commenting on the whole she-bang.
But.
After hearing for a few months now that pulling out of Iraq means we haven't won, I'm beginning to wonder what the definition of "won" means. NPR was running an interesting story about IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) and how they have evolved since the beginning of the war. The interviewee was the foremost expert on these things and how they are set off. The interviewer asked him if there would ever be a point where they (the IEDs) were 100% ineffective because we had developed technology to either prevent them from exploding or at least prevent them from doing damage. The interviewee's answer was "probably not" because there's always a reason for The Enemy to keep building them, so, They will keep building them and working around our work-arounds that make the IEDs ineffective. That while we can mute the impact of the IED, the Raison D'Etre for their very being is cultural and until we win the socio-economic battle, we would never win the IED technology battle.
So, to me at least, that raises the question: can we "win" in Iraq? If you think back to WWII or even Korea, you'll see that wars are "won" - someone is declared the winner and everyone splits up the spoils, and the loser has to deal with the consequences and everyone lives more or less happily ever after (in a sustained cold war that causes panic and nuclear stockpiles). But there's a document of the event. Someone has signed a piece of paper in front of international witnesses that says "I Lost." It seems to me that this event is unlikely to occur in this war. First of all, who would sign it? Bin Laden? He doesn't really have anything to do with the war going on in Iraq (oh, I'm sure there's something that would link Bin Laden to the Iraqi dissident uprising - in fact there's probably a video of the meeting sitting in a vault somewhere in the CIA right this very second that shows the meeting with giant presentation easel in the room that reads "Plan: Death to the Western Infidels. Signed Bin Laden and the Iraqi Dissidents. Dated September 12, 2001.")
Anyway. My bigger point is: what are the terms of "winning" this war? A self-sustaining democratic government in Iraq that is freely elected in a peaceful, well-run election where all of the groups have pro-rata representation? We don't even have that here. A Constitution, President and governing body with police force and judicial system? That can't be it, because they have that and we're still there (i.e., we haven't "won" yet). Killing every member of any rebel group that is causing massive unrest? Doesn't seem like that's the answer, because much of the reason that they are even uprising is because we're there in the first place.
It seems that the US is waiting around for the Iraqi police and military to stop being corrupt and finally get around to policing themselves. But it's a chicken-and-egg situation - they can't support themselves until we leave, and we can't leave until they support themselves. I think the answer is this: they have plenty of reason to want to support themselves - and those reasons are scattered around the country and producing 20% of the world's oil. So, if left to the natural devices, it seems to me that those charged with deriving that oil would want a stable government to ensure that they could sell that oil. Since, we got rid of the unstable government and set up the skeleton of one that can work, all that's left is to hand over the keys and walk away. At some point, King Oilfield is going to have to drive the country off the lot, so to speak - even if he can't drive a stick shift.
But.
After hearing for a few months now that pulling out of Iraq means we haven't won, I'm beginning to wonder what the definition of "won" means. NPR was running an interesting story about IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) and how they have evolved since the beginning of the war. The interviewee was the foremost expert on these things and how they are set off. The interviewer asked him if there would ever be a point where they (the IEDs) were 100% ineffective because we had developed technology to either prevent them from exploding or at least prevent them from doing damage. The interviewee's answer was "probably not" because there's always a reason for The Enemy to keep building them, so, They will keep building them and working around our work-arounds that make the IEDs ineffective. That while we can mute the impact of the IED, the Raison D'Etre for their very being is cultural and until we win the socio-economic battle, we would never win the IED technology battle.
So, to me at least, that raises the question: can we "win" in Iraq? If you think back to WWII or even Korea, you'll see that wars are "won" - someone is declared the winner and everyone splits up the spoils, and the loser has to deal with the consequences and everyone lives more or less happily ever after (in a sustained cold war that causes panic and nuclear stockpiles). But there's a document of the event. Someone has signed a piece of paper in front of international witnesses that says "I Lost." It seems to me that this event is unlikely to occur in this war. First of all, who would sign it? Bin Laden? He doesn't really have anything to do with the war going on in Iraq (oh, I'm sure there's something that would link Bin Laden to the Iraqi dissident uprising - in fact there's probably a video of the meeting sitting in a vault somewhere in the CIA right this very second that shows the meeting with giant presentation easel in the room that reads "Plan: Death to the Western Infidels. Signed Bin Laden and the Iraqi Dissidents. Dated September 12, 2001.")
Anyway. My bigger point is: what are the terms of "winning" this war? A self-sustaining democratic government in Iraq that is freely elected in a peaceful, well-run election where all of the groups have pro-rata representation? We don't even have that here. A Constitution, President and governing body with police force and judicial system? That can't be it, because they have that and we're still there (i.e., we haven't "won" yet). Killing every member of any rebel group that is causing massive unrest? Doesn't seem like that's the answer, because much of the reason that they are even uprising is because we're there in the first place.
It seems that the US is waiting around for the Iraqi police and military to stop being corrupt and finally get around to policing themselves. But it's a chicken-and-egg situation - they can't support themselves until we leave, and we can't leave until they support themselves. I think the answer is this: they have plenty of reason to want to support themselves - and those reasons are scattered around the country and producing 20% of the world's oil. So, if left to the natural devices, it seems to me that those charged with deriving that oil would want a stable government to ensure that they could sell that oil. Since, we got rid of the unstable government and set up the skeleton of one that can work, all that's left is to hand over the keys and walk away. At some point, King Oilfield is going to have to drive the country off the lot, so to speak - even if he can't drive a stick shift.
Monday, July 31, 2006
John Has An Interesting Point
So, John was up in Janesville this past weekend and, as we are wont to do, we were discussing topics that are current in today's political climate. We avoided the unimportant (Israel v. Huzbulleh) and the mundane (the relative merits of George W. Bush as the leader of the free world) and went straight to topics that are important to every youngish-middlish-aged males - internet gambling.
If you are unaware, and I may (or may not) have pointed this out before, the state of Washington has already passed, and the US Congress is about to pass, a bill that would ban "internet gambling." Basically, they want to ban online poker. I think my last post on this topic discussed the hypocrisy of those who proposed the bills (namely politicians from Iowa and Pennsylvania) rather than the actual content of the bill. I posited that it seemed a bit disingenuous for a politician from Iowa to propose a bill that would ban online gambling when his own state contained no fewer than 17 casinos. It seems that if you were really concerned about the societal ills of gambling, the best place to start would be the casinos within your own control, namely, those in your own jurisdiction. Instead, the politicians are reaching beyond their jurisdiction to posture in a place they can't possibly hope to control to try to gain popular (read: middle-america republican) support in an election year. As a side note (do my postings ever contain anything other than a series of "side notes"???) I would be curious to know how many of those middle-american republicans make their annual trek to Las Vegas or the Mississippi riverboats to blow their hard-earned nickles on quarter slots.
Which, leads to John's point. He posits the question: why would a politician oppose such a bill? There's virtually no political down-side in supporting it. Those who are in favor of internet gambling (and those constituents who would be "against" the bill) know it could never be enforced from a practical standpoint, thus are unlikely to care whether it actually passes or not because it will not change their activity (this is sort of like "illegal" downloading of music - despite the fact that it is "illegal" people continue to do it because it is practically impossible to enforce). Those against internet gambling would like to see such a bill and a politician could gain political capital by supporting it. Thus, a politician would not see any repurcussions from supporting it; the opposition just doesn't care enough - and it's not like there's a "pro-online-gambling" political action committee to stand up for the rights of the casual online poker player (like me - to date I have lost a grand total of $10).
My argument, half-drunk and not well-thought out, is that we, in our position as "member of a free society" and politicians as our representatives should oppose the legislation on basic principles of our democratic and free society. It seems only a little strange that a nation that is in the midst of a war that would put Russia's conquest to turn Asia communist to shame, in the same breath that supports and extolls the virtues of democracy and freedom, is invading the dens and living rooms and computer rooms and bedrooms of its own people to ban them from activity conducted there. In other words, the legislation enforces the very opposite of personal freedom. So, it seems a little disignenuous to "free" the Iraqis when reducing the freedom of your own citizens. Thus, any congress-critter that voted for, or has expressed a support for, the mission of freedom (if not the invasion) in Iraq is a hypocrite if they vote for this legislation.
I'm not suggesting that Congress does not have the power or ability to regulate online gambling. Of course they do. I'm suggesting instead that if Congress doesn't want online gambling, that it ban the establishment of online casinos in the United States. The online casinos are still free to set up outside the borders of the United States. But it seems only a little hypocritical and fascist to tell "free" citizens what websites they can visit and what activities they can and cannot perform in the privacy of their own homes. Yes, they already do this: you can't view child porn at home (but that affects more than just the individual viewing because the very act of producing it is degrading and there is strong public policy against child pornography - and while the congresspeople would argue that public policy militates against gambling, I would argue that it's not nearly as strong of a public policy, because we do, in fact, allow some gambling, just not online gambling - we do not allow "live child pornography" while banning "online child pornography"), you can't send email spam (again, it affects more than just the person sending, because it also affects the person receiving), and you can't have anal sex in Georgia (would somebody care to tell me the last time this was actually enforced? Thus, it is a similar, toothless, silly policy that may as well not exist).
In any event, we, as people, should oppose the legislation not because we are in favor of online gambling (most of us don't really care one way or the other about online gambling), but because we value our freedom. One of these days perhaps I'll write something about how George W. Bush and his neo-conservative republican cronies are eroding any base that they may have had outside of the "religious right" by insisting on controlling, invasive, and hypocritical politics.
If you are unaware, and I may (or may not) have pointed this out before, the state of Washington has already passed, and the US Congress is about to pass, a bill that would ban "internet gambling." Basically, they want to ban online poker. I think my last post on this topic discussed the hypocrisy of those who proposed the bills (namely politicians from Iowa and Pennsylvania) rather than the actual content of the bill. I posited that it seemed a bit disingenuous for a politician from Iowa to propose a bill that would ban online gambling when his own state contained no fewer than 17 casinos. It seems that if you were really concerned about the societal ills of gambling, the best place to start would be the casinos within your own control, namely, those in your own jurisdiction. Instead, the politicians are reaching beyond their jurisdiction to posture in a place they can't possibly hope to control to try to gain popular (read: middle-america republican) support in an election year. As a side note (do my postings ever contain anything other than a series of "side notes"???) I would be curious to know how many of those middle-american republicans make their annual trek to Las Vegas or the Mississippi riverboats to blow their hard-earned nickles on quarter slots.
Which, leads to John's point. He posits the question: why would a politician oppose such a bill? There's virtually no political down-side in supporting it. Those who are in favor of internet gambling (and those constituents who would be "against" the bill) know it could never be enforced from a practical standpoint, thus are unlikely to care whether it actually passes or not because it will not change their activity (this is sort of like "illegal" downloading of music - despite the fact that it is "illegal" people continue to do it because it is practically impossible to enforce). Those against internet gambling would like to see such a bill and a politician could gain political capital by supporting it. Thus, a politician would not see any repurcussions from supporting it; the opposition just doesn't care enough - and it's not like there's a "pro-online-gambling" political action committee to stand up for the rights of the casual online poker player (like me - to date I have lost a grand total of $10).
My argument, half-drunk and not well-thought out, is that we, in our position as "member of a free society" and politicians as our representatives should oppose the legislation on basic principles of our democratic and free society. It seems only a little strange that a nation that is in the midst of a war that would put Russia's conquest to turn Asia communist to shame, in the same breath that supports and extolls the virtues of democracy and freedom, is invading the dens and living rooms and computer rooms and bedrooms of its own people to ban them from activity conducted there. In other words, the legislation enforces the very opposite of personal freedom. So, it seems a little disignenuous to "free" the Iraqis when reducing the freedom of your own citizens. Thus, any congress-critter that voted for, or has expressed a support for, the mission of freedom (if not the invasion) in Iraq is a hypocrite if they vote for this legislation.
I'm not suggesting that Congress does not have the power or ability to regulate online gambling. Of course they do. I'm suggesting instead that if Congress doesn't want online gambling, that it ban the establishment of online casinos in the United States. The online casinos are still free to set up outside the borders of the United States. But it seems only a little hypocritical and fascist to tell "free" citizens what websites they can visit and what activities they can and cannot perform in the privacy of their own homes. Yes, they already do this: you can't view child porn at home (but that affects more than just the individual viewing because the very act of producing it is degrading and there is strong public policy against child pornography - and while the congresspeople would argue that public policy militates against gambling, I would argue that it's not nearly as strong of a public policy, because we do, in fact, allow some gambling, just not online gambling - we do not allow "live child pornography" while banning "online child pornography"), you can't send email spam (again, it affects more than just the person sending, because it also affects the person receiving), and you can't have anal sex in Georgia (would somebody care to tell me the last time this was actually enforced? Thus, it is a similar, toothless, silly policy that may as well not exist).
In any event, we, as people, should oppose the legislation not because we are in favor of online gambling (most of us don't really care one way or the other about online gambling), but because we value our freedom. One of these days perhaps I'll write something about how George W. Bush and his neo-conservative republican cronies are eroding any base that they may have had outside of the "religious right" by insisting on controlling, invasive, and hypocritical politics.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Chris Zorich
Because not all of you read my other blog, I'd figure I'd cross post this and add a little to it, because it's just too god-damn weird.
OK, from the realm of "ridiculous." I've had this Bears' jersey for years. I bought it in probably 1996 or so when John and I went to Chicago. Bought at the discount rack at Sports Authority on LaSalle at Ohio (or thereabouts). It's a Chris Zorich jersey. Who's Chris Zorich? Well, ummm...not what I thought. First, a quick run-down: he played football at Notre Dame (Defensive Lineman) and was drafted by the Chicago Bears. When he played he was pretty damn good. Unfortunately, he spent a lot of time injured and by 1997 he was out of football (he retired with the Redskins). I can't seem to find anything that says why, but I seem to remember he had nagging injuries and was considered a bit of a "mercurial" attitude.
I remembered him being really good, which is why I had bought the jersey and at the time, it was hoped he would still be able to play. He wasn't and he seemed to fall off the earth.
In any event, I wear the jersey on occassion because at this point it's got kind of an "old school" charm. Little did I know that the "charm" would be in full effect today. We were walking back from the Wicker Park Festival (it was raining, after Brothers Past) on Milwaukee to get a cab. As we were walking we hear "hey, you! stop!" I turned around and saw this huge bouncer-looking dude running at me from across the street. So, I kept walking (people in Chicago are crazy, I'm not stopping!). But, he was persistent and kept yelling to stop. So, I stopped. And here's the conversation that transpired.
him: "Hey, thanks for stopping."
me: "Sure"
him: "Where did you get that jersey?"
me: "I don't know, I've had it for years. I got it back in 96 or so."
him: "really? well. I just wanted to say 'thanks for wearing that jersey."
me: "huh?"
him: "Thanks for wearing that jersey, I really appreciate it."
me: "Ummm... no problem dude."
He shook my hand, and I shook his and we both went our separate ways. It all happened rather quickly and I wasn't really sure what the hell was going on. We walked away and it occurred to me: "Holy crap. That was Chris Zorich."
So, now my curiosity is peaked. I wonder "what the hell happened to Chris Zorich that he's now a bouncer at some random bar in Wicker Park?" Turns out ... he's not exactly a bouncer.
Here's the deal with Chris Zorich. Since leaving football he's been a little busy. He's running the Christopher Zorich Foundation. From his dress when I saw him, I can only guess that he was doing some work on behalf of the foundation when I saw him (he had work-gloves). He's also an attorney with Schuyler, Roche, and Zwirner in Chicago. So, go check out his Foundation's website; if you're feeling generous, donate your time or money.
I only wish I had known all of this when I met Mr. Zorich on the street. I have a zillion questions that I would have asked him.
OK, from the realm of "ridiculous." I've had this Bears' jersey for years. I bought it in probably 1996 or so when John and I went to Chicago. Bought at the discount rack at Sports Authority on LaSalle at Ohio (or thereabouts). It's a Chris Zorich jersey. Who's Chris Zorich? Well, ummm...not what I thought. First, a quick run-down: he played football at Notre Dame (Defensive Lineman) and was drafted by the Chicago Bears. When he played he was pretty damn good. Unfortunately, he spent a lot of time injured and by 1997 he was out of football (he retired with the Redskins). I can't seem to find anything that says why, but I seem to remember he had nagging injuries and was considered a bit of a "mercurial" attitude.
I remembered him being really good, which is why I had bought the jersey and at the time, it was hoped he would still be able to play. He wasn't and he seemed to fall off the earth.
In any event, I wear the jersey on occassion because at this point it's got kind of an "old school" charm. Little did I know that the "charm" would be in full effect today. We were walking back from the Wicker Park Festival (it was raining, after Brothers Past) on Milwaukee to get a cab. As we were walking we hear "hey, you! stop!" I turned around and saw this huge bouncer-looking dude running at me from across the street. So, I kept walking (people in Chicago are crazy, I'm not stopping!). But, he was persistent and kept yelling to stop. So, I stopped. And here's the conversation that transpired.
him: "Hey, thanks for stopping."
me: "Sure"
him: "Where did you get that jersey?"
me: "I don't know, I've had it for years. I got it back in 96 or so."
him: "really? well. I just wanted to say 'thanks for wearing that jersey."
me: "huh?"
him: "Thanks for wearing that jersey, I really appreciate it."
me: "Ummm... no problem dude."
He shook my hand, and I shook his and we both went our separate ways. It all happened rather quickly and I wasn't really sure what the hell was going on. We walked away and it occurred to me: "Holy crap. That was Chris Zorich."
So, now my curiosity is peaked. I wonder "what the hell happened to Chris Zorich that he's now a bouncer at some random bar in Wicker Park?" Turns out ... he's not exactly a bouncer.
Here's the deal with Chris Zorich. Since leaving football he's been a little busy. He's running the Christopher Zorich Foundation. From his dress when I saw him, I can only guess that he was doing some work on behalf of the foundation when I saw him (he had work-gloves). He's also an attorney with Schuyler, Roche, and Zwirner in Chicago. So, go check out his Foundation's website; if you're feeling generous, donate your time or money.
I only wish I had known all of this when I met Mr. Zorich on the street. I have a zillion questions that I would have asked him.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Proof That Lawyers and Government Don't Mix
Seen on www.uspto.gov today, an actual committee that's supposed to accomplish something:
Provisional Committee for Consideration of Proposals Relating to a Development Agenda for WIPO (PCDA)
Unpack that one. So, this is a temporary group of people ("provisional committee") covened for the purpose of thinking about suggestions ("consideration of proposals") that deal with a list of topics to discuss the growth ("relating to a development agenda") of the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO")? That doesn't seem like a very useful meeting to me; or at least not one that has to be performed in-person - maybe exchange some emails until you get the development agenda proposals narrowed down for an actual committee to consider. Just a thought.
Oh, and just so you know: they considered 111 proposals. But, this temporary group thought process was scuttled when Brazil and Argentina played sticks-in-the-mud and decided to take their ball and go home.
Provisional Committee for Consideration of Proposals Relating to a Development Agenda for WIPO (PCDA)
Unpack that one. So, this is a temporary group of people ("provisional committee") covened for the purpose of thinking about suggestions ("consideration of proposals") that deal with a list of topics to discuss the growth ("relating to a development agenda") of the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO")? That doesn't seem like a very useful meeting to me; or at least not one that has to be performed in-person - maybe exchange some emails until you get the development agenda proposals narrowed down for an actual committee to consider. Just a thought.
Oh, and just so you know: they considered 111 proposals. But, this temporary group thought process was scuttled when Brazil and Argentina played sticks-in-the-mud and decided to take their ball and go home.
They Had The Nerve To Talk About It
I'll keep this relatively brief. Over the weekend we got cable re-installed (can't live without the Tour de France!) and one of the things I was watching yesterday morning was this show on AMC called "Sunday Morning Shoot-Out" - think of it as "Meet the Press" for the movie industry. The guest for the day was the CEO of Sony, Sir Howard Stringer. And he was fine - actually sounded like a pretty personable dude. But, then he dropped a bomb that is so inexcusable, so astoundingly pretentious, so amazingly condescending, so attrociously dictatorial that I not only turned the station, I have vowed that I will not knowingly watch another Sony movie (of course, this would be impossible, because a) Sony makes a lot of pretty decent movies and b) they have so many 'boutique' labels that I would never know if it IS Sony).
Anyway. They were talking about how "Memoirs of Geisha was such a failure." The problem, seemingly, is that it went WAY over budget and that it was offensive to the very people whom it was supposed to represent (e.g., using Chinese actors to portray Japanese people!). In the course of the interview, not ducking the criticism, Stringer admitted to it. He admitted that it should have been made for about half the cost and they should have looked harder for real Japanese actors.
But, this is where it gets good.
He claims it was still a good movie, but that what did it in was not that it was so offensive but "because we showed a screening in Japan a week before it was supposed to come out and the bad word of mouth kept people from the box office." Fuck you Stringer! How about you not make an offensive movie!!! I can not honestly believe that a CEO would stand (or sit) in front of a television audience and tell them, point blank, the problem isn't with the movie, it's that we showed it to people. The problem is that we showed an offensive movie and didn't give ourselves the first week box office to make sure we could reap at least some profit from the offensive movie before people started talking about how offensive it was and stopped seeing it.
So, it appears, that the lesson that Sir Howard Stringer is taking out of this is not: don't make offensive movies. Rather, the lesson is: If you're going to make an offensive movie, don't show it to anybody before it goes to the general public.
And the movie industry wonders why nobody goes to the fucking movies any more.
Anyway. They were talking about how "Memoirs of Geisha was such a failure." The problem, seemingly, is that it went WAY over budget and that it was offensive to the very people whom it was supposed to represent (e.g., using Chinese actors to portray Japanese people!). In the course of the interview, not ducking the criticism, Stringer admitted to it. He admitted that it should have been made for about half the cost and they should have looked harder for real Japanese actors.
But, this is where it gets good.
He claims it was still a good movie, but that what did it in was not that it was so offensive but "because we showed a screening in Japan a week before it was supposed to come out and the bad word of mouth kept people from the box office." Fuck you Stringer! How about you not make an offensive movie!!! I can not honestly believe that a CEO would stand (or sit) in front of a television audience and tell them, point blank, the problem isn't with the movie, it's that we showed it to people. The problem is that we showed an offensive movie and didn't give ourselves the first week box office to make sure we could reap at least some profit from the offensive movie before people started talking about how offensive it was and stopped seeing it.
So, it appears, that the lesson that Sir Howard Stringer is taking out of this is not: don't make offensive movies. Rather, the lesson is: If you're going to make an offensive movie, don't show it to anybody before it goes to the general public.
And the movie industry wonders why nobody goes to the fucking movies any more.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Update on the Whole Unity08 Thing
I promised an update and here it is: It's starting to feel a bit like a cult, or a pyramid scheme, or Amway, or a chain letter. In other words, it's starting to feel a little .... off.
On June 28, I got an email asking me to "Declare Your Independence Today." It directs me to a website that contains the following:
Declaration of Independence from Politics without Purpose
I'll leave alone the fact that, much like everything else published by these folks, this takes 7 paragraphs to not really say anything at all.
Now. I didn't check email on the 28th because I was out of town. But, not to be deterred, I received the same email on June 30th (still out of town) and again on July 3 (still out of town). Just for shits and giggles when I got home on the 4th and actually got around to reading it on the 5th I went and threw my name on it. After I hit "submit" it requested that I send a message to others asking them to sign it as well. Now, I'm not one to impose my self on others. I've done my duty, I've posted it here, if you're that interested you've looked at it yourself. I don't need to impose it on you by emailing you constant reminders of my own political whims.
Nevertheless, today (July 6), I get an email from them asking me, rather condescendingly I think, to "Show How Serious You Are." The email exhorted me to "take three minutes to get three more signatures" (emphasis in original). Now, it seems to me that if they truly offer a great product or service and advertise properly, they shouldn't have any problem getting signatures. It's this sort of "forced" viral marketing that is really irritating.
Groups see that some things travel the internet really quickly. Things like "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" and "Lazy Sunday" and whatnot. For some reason these things grab the fancy of the populace and they become over-night successes. But it happens naturally. No one said "Jeff, please forward this really funny banana singing an inane song to every person you know because we think it's funny, we think you'll find it funny, and we think your friends will find it funny." You know what? If I find it funny, I'll send it on without your telling me to.
And that's how viral marketing marks. It's providing something compelling enough that people want to share it. Not telling them that they aren't serious about a cause if they don't share it. That's just condescending and pretentious and grating.
I suppose by posting it here I've met their request to "forward it to 3 of my friends" and indeed I've done them one better by spending a bit more than 3 minutes discussing it. So, there ya are, I guess. Viral marketing at it's best. As they say, even bad publicity is publicity.
On June 28, I got an email asking me to "Declare Your Independence Today." It directs me to a website that contains the following:
Declaration of Independence from Politics without Purpose
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for the governed to warn the government, a decent respect for democracy requires them to declare the causes of their anger.
We hold these truths to be self evident:
We, therefore, as representatives of all the people of the United States, regardless of party, beseech our leaders to listen to our voices and hear our pleas. And to that end we mutually pledge to each other our sacred honor in declaring our independence from politics without purpose."That elected officials should be public servants first and partisans second;
That to bicker is not to lead;
That those bought by lobby money cannot represent the people;
And that to polarize the Congress is to paralyze the nation.
I'll leave alone the fact that, much like everything else published by these folks, this takes 7 paragraphs to not really say anything at all.
Now. I didn't check email on the 28th because I was out of town. But, not to be deterred, I received the same email on June 30th (still out of town) and again on July 3 (still out of town). Just for shits and giggles when I got home on the 4th and actually got around to reading it on the 5th I went and threw my name on it. After I hit "submit" it requested that I send a message to others asking them to sign it as well. Now, I'm not one to impose my self on others. I've done my duty, I've posted it here, if you're that interested you've looked at it yourself. I don't need to impose it on you by emailing you constant reminders of my own political whims.
Nevertheless, today (July 6), I get an email from them asking me, rather condescendingly I think, to "Show How Serious You Are." The email exhorted me to "take three minutes to get three more signatures" (emphasis in original). Now, it seems to me that if they truly offer a great product or service and advertise properly, they shouldn't have any problem getting signatures. It's this sort of "forced" viral marketing that is really irritating.
Groups see that some things travel the internet really quickly. Things like "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" and "Lazy Sunday" and whatnot. For some reason these things grab the fancy of the populace and they become over-night successes. But it happens naturally. No one said "Jeff, please forward this really funny banana singing an inane song to every person you know because we think it's funny, we think you'll find it funny, and we think your friends will find it funny." You know what? If I find it funny, I'll send it on without your telling me to.
And that's how viral marketing marks. It's providing something compelling enough that people want to share it. Not telling them that they aren't serious about a cause if they don't share it. That's just condescending and pretentious and grating.
I suppose by posting it here I've met their request to "forward it to 3 of my friends" and indeed I've done them one better by spending a bit more than 3 minutes discussing it. So, there ya are, I guess. Viral marketing at it's best. As they say, even bad publicity is publicity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)