It’s all fun and games until you get waterboarded yourself

It’s easy to say waterboarding isn’t torture when you haven’t been through it.  Christopher Hitchens, one of the mightiest scribblers of our time, shows us why this is so.

Watch Hitchens subject himself to “aggressive interrogation techniques” and explain its effects here:

Hitchens waterboarded

Check out his disturbing article here:

Believe Me, It’s Torture

 

 

Qualification

The only thing that qualifies you to be president is 270 electoral college votes…

Let’s move beyond the inanity.  

Troglodyte Homunculus

This is a little after the fact, but so brilliant it’s still worth sharing.

 

 

 

A Cheap Shot Against a Cheap Campaign

Cialis, the male erectile dysfunction solution, may need to rethink its target audience.  After maxing out the demographic of males with erectile dysfunction who own twin his and hers outdoor bathtubs, their current campaign no longer connects with anyone.  

Suggestions for new target audiences:

Men with erectile dysfunction with his and hers outdoor toilets, which some may consider outhouses.

Men with ED with his and her outdoor twin beds with protective railing.

Single men with ED.  The tagline will be: Get up and get out there.

The exhaustion of this target audience comes as a disappointment to the creative team in charge of the Cialis account–they were looking forward to unleashing their newest tagline for the current campaign:

When the time is right, go outside and get in separate dirty bathtubs with no plumbing.  Why not?  You’ve got four hours to kill.  Perhaps more.

A New Symbol For Love

Challenge

The heart is old news! Create a new symbol for love.

Methodology

This was an incredibly difficult challenge for me. I’m a word person, so every time I need to come up with some kind of presentation or project for something, I fall back on words, stories, and sheer goofiness. But this, creating an original image for such a profound subject, was daunting. There’s nothing to hide behind, there’s no room to squirm, there’s no place for explanations.

Where do you even start with something like this? I didn’t know, so I did what I do when I don’t know what I’m doing: I don’t do it. I let it fester and bore a hole in my mind until I wake up screaming in the darkest hours of the night about not coming up with a new image for love. Wait, wait, wait. That’s not how it happened.

I let the concept incubate for a number of days. Didn’t even think about it. Then, when I was finally ready to face my weakness, I meditated on it. Seriously. I closed my eyes, breathed deeply, and thought about the challenge.

My first thoughts were of images. I tried to knock this puppy out of the park with one swing. It didn’t take too long to figure out that wasn’t going to happen.

Then I stepped back and asked myself: what is love? And for some reason, the Little Prince popped into my mind. Specifically, the scenes with the dog or wolf (it’s been a while). Even if I can’t remember what animal it was, I remember the essence of those scenes: things come together and get closer and closer until they finally merge. Then they move together.

I transfered this thinking to my life, to my girlfriend. We had two separate lives until we met. Then we began seeing more and more of each other until we couldn’t stand being separated anymore. From that point on, we’ve been inextricably linked at the hip. Our lives became one.

Final Product

This is exactly what the image represents. We have two separate lines, red and blue, that are attracted to each other. After that initial attraction, they weave back and forth, oscillating between one another, getting closer and closer until finally coming together to form one line. At that point, when the red and blue lines converge, the line goes purple. They are no longer two lines, two colors, two stories. They are one line, one color, one life, moving in concert, in harmony, and in love to wherever life takes them.

What do you think? Does the image do love justice? How does it rate against the heart?

Universal Damage Control

How would you like to be the European Center for Nuclear Research’s (CERN) spokesperson this June when they accidentally create a black hole that will swallow the earth?

The press conference might go something like this:

CERN Spokesperson: Thank you all for coming today on such short notice. I realize that there isn’t much time left, but your promptness is appreciated nonetheless. I will begin by reading a brief statement and then we’ll open the floor to questions. Ahem. As many of you know, CERN has been working on the world’s largest particle accelerator for years with the hope of gaining a more intimate view of the intricate mechanics of our universe. This morning, we conducted our first experiments. We wanted to see what the universe looked like a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. We are proud to announce that we have succeeded. In the interest of time, however, we will not focus on the results of the experiments. Rather, we will concentrate on what we call dynamic incidental occurrences. In this case, we’ve created a black hole that will swallow the earth in approximately… 32 minutes. I suggest you all go home to be with your families. We profoundly apologize for our mistake. Questions?

Reporter 1: Just to clarify, you’re saying that you’ve recreated the conditions one trillionth of a second after the Big Bang?

CERN Spokesperson: Yes, and a mammoth black hole that will end all life on earth.

Reporter 1: A quick follow-up. What were the results of the experiments? Were you able to make any conclusions?

CERN Spokesperson: Just that a massive black hole will tear apart everything we hold dear.

Reporter 2: This seems like a daunting undertaking. Who provided the funding for these experiments?

CERN Spokesperson: People who will be eaten by a black hole very soon.

Reporter 3: You mentioned something about a black hole. Could you go into more detail about that?

CERN Spokesperson: Yes, thank you for that question. After charging protons to seven trillion electron volts we shot them at each other to create cosmic rays. These cosmic rays subsequently smashed into each other and created a black hole that will destroy everything we’ve ever known. We admit that this result was an oversight on our part.

Reporter 1: What measures will be taken to prevent a mistake like this from happening again?
CERN Spokesperson: No measures are being taken. After recognizing the gross error we committed, all CERN employees went home to be with their families. I imagine they will stay there for the remainder of existence.

Reporter 1: So CERN is doing nothing to prevent this from happening again?

CERN Spokesperson: This will never happen again regardless of what CERN does or does not do.

Reporter 1: I’m sorry, but, just to clarify. You’re saying CERN is doing nothing to correct this mistake?

CERN Spokesperson: We created a black hole. In 27 minutes the earth will disappear from the solar system, in 35 minutes our sun will cease to exist. There’s not much we can do. We have time for one more question. Yes–

Reporter 4: Are the people responsible for the black hole going to be held to account for their mistakes?

CERN Spokesperson: I’d say that’s up to higher powers now. OK, thank you for coming, but that’s all the time we have. Before we go, we’d just like to take this opportunity once again to apologize to humanity for screwing the pooch.

Good luck.

Help Me Get Drunk

Have you ever been walking down the street, see a panhandler with a sign that says “I lost my job, my wife, and my dog. Please help. God bless” and keep walking, completely ignoring him only to come to another guy, just a few feet away, with a sign that says “Help me get drunk and/or laid” and give him a buck? I have and I’d like to say I understand why, but the truth is that I have no idea.

I would say that it’s because of the second guy’s honesty. He wants to get drunk. He wants to get laid. (Can you blame him?) He’s giving it to you as it is. He’s keeping it real. And we, at least I, appreciate this candor.

But what about the other guy? People lose jobs everyday–the economy is on its way out in a hurry. It’s entirely possible. People lose wives everyday. Sometimes, they just leave. Maybe they leave cause their husbands lost their jobs. People lose dogs everyday, too. They run away for stupid reasons. Cats, rabbits, vacuums, bacon, shadow puppets. Maybe they leave because their owners lost their jobs. It’s entirely possible.

But do we believe him? No. Of course not. We think it’s a deliberate attempt to play with our emotions to get a bit of change so he can go get a bottle of Smirnoff Ice.

The same concept relates to marketing. Create believable messages and people will buy what you’re selling. Make up drivel that masquerades as honesty and you get hosed.

Consider this: Panhandlers in Chapel Hill NC are raking in $100 a day. One-hundred dollars a day, five days a week, 52 weeks a year and you’ve got a $26,000 career on your hands. Throw in two weeks of unpaid vacation and you’ve got $25,000. Journalists working for small newspapers make less than that. And they’re the gatekeepers of information.

Who do you think is making the money? The drunk or the guy without the dog? I put my money on the drunk. Why? We like honesty. We like it when people tell us the truth. Respect our intelligence and we’ll repay you in kind. Try and jerk us around and you get buptkis.

Like everything else, it’s all about the message and how you frame it.

Even if it’s on wet cardboard.

It’s Getting Crowded in Here

There seems to be two emerging theories of thought on crowdsourcing, i.e., consumer-generated media. It’s good, and it’s not.

Just over the past couple days I’ve read a number of reviews on Starbucks’ latest brainchild, called My Starbucks Idea. The idea is that Buckies (copyright Matthew Fiorentino) go to the site and pour their hearts out about all their most intimate desires, longings, and kinky cravings about everything and anything Starbucktastic. Together they will shape the future of Starbucks.

The first reviews I read showered Starbucks with praise. Finally, companies are beginning to understand that they don’t define the brand–the customers do. Giving the consumers a seat at the table will make them feel like part of the family. By allowing customers help shape the future of the company, they will have a stronger tie to the brand. Etc.

But then the naysayers started coming out of the woodworks. People are saying that it doesn’t fit with the brand, that the problem that Starbucks answers as a brand is a quality of life issue. They’re saying it’s too little too late. They’re saying that overzealous Buckies could demand some ideas (like free espresso Monday) that could put the company at odds with its fans.

I’m starting to side with the naysayers. The Starbucks idea sounds more and more like a contrived community, a Hail Mary idea that sinks its teeth into what’s popular right now.

It’s not that I don’t think an online community for Starbucks could work, I just think that hasn’t been framed correctly. Instead of having customers give them ideas about how to make Starbucks better, why not have customers write about what Starbucks means to them in their daily struggle with the universe? Have a contest centered around the difference Starbucks makes in Buckies’ lives. Or take a cue from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report when Starbucks closed its doors for three hours to retrain its employees and have people talk about what they would do without Starbucks. People could vote on the best story and the winner would get free Starbucks for life.

This would get people involved while providing a reminder to Buckies why they love Starbucks so much. It would also help define the brand–it’s not what we say it is, it’s what the customers say it is, right? Contests like these would provide unlimited feedback.

It also creates an easier path to a community. It would encourage people to read about other Buckies’ stories and engage them in a way ideas about the perfect Starbucks could never do. If Starbucks did it correctly, it could even turn into a social networking experience. People who live in the same area with the same interests love the same thing about Starbucks writing from two different computers who have seen each other before but didn’t know it was them and always wanted to muster up the courage to talk to the other one but could never do it until they find each other at StarbucksStories.com and then they finally meet, unexpectedly, at Starbucks and they fall head over heels in love but he’s a Jewish black man from Malaysia and she’s an Asian Morman from Guadalajara and what would their parents say… It’s not only good marketing, it’s got Hollywood potential, baby!

To see crowdsourcing at its finest, check out Toyota’s Scion. They seem to have figured out the dosage. They recently announced that proud Scion owners, Scionists (copyright Matthew Fiorentino), will be able to go to their website to design their own logos for their Scion mobiles. This is a holistic call for community. Scionists love their Scions and tend towards accessorizing, just like HOGs. Allowing them to create their own logos for their own rides fits perfectly with what they’re trying to do.

Even if they’re just part of the crowd.

What did China do this time?

I’m a bit confused over the recent flurry of activity about boycotting the Beijing Olympics.

People are taking a stance against a myriad of offenses perpetrated by the Chinese government. From the unspeakable genocide in Darfur, to the terrible pollution, to the uprising in Tibet, to human rights abuses, people are angry and standing up for those in need. As they should.

These are problems the world needs to deal with right away. Waiting a single day to take action, real action, against any of these atrocities is a tragedy.

But the issue is this: We, i.e., the International Olympic Committee, voted to give the Olympics to Beijing by more than a 2 to 1 margin over Toronto in 2001. It wasn’t even close. And while there was a slight uproar in corners of the world, the majority shrugged its shoulders and moved on.

Now that more of the same is occurring in China seven years later, people are having second thoughts. Steven Spielberg has backed out of being an artistic advisor to the games, citing concerns over Darfur and China’s connection with the Sudanese government. Just today, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he would not rule out boycotting the opening ceremonies until Chinese authorities loosen their grip on Tibet.

These problems have been going on for longer than we’d like to admit. Yes, the situation in Tibet has deteriorated, but it has always been tenuous at best. Darfur has been perpetually horrendous since 2003.

But for the most part, this is business as usual for the Chinese government.

The world should have said no to Beijing when it had the chance. The problem is it didn’t. It unleashed the beast onto the public and now it’s cringing at the results.

The question is, why did Spielberg accept the position if he knew China’s open dirty secrets? And why did he wait until now to abdicate his position?

Perhaps this is all an elaborate attempt to get the Chinese to behave. Give them a toy and then threaten to take it away if they don’t behave. This is the only explanation that sheds any light on these revelations of late. And this is essentially how Spielberg played it.

“You’re not playing the way I wanted to play, so now I’m taking my ball and I’m going home.”

The thing is the games will continue. And they should. But we should learn from this mistake.

When a country isn’t ready to play by our rules we shouldn’t let them into the game.

What this means is that we should keep fighting vigorously against all the pernicious Chinese policies, and the litany of offenses is long, but we should bite our lip when it comes to their games.

It was our idea to have them throw the party. It’s our own fault if we don’t like the food.

1984

We all knew that the day would eventually come when our televisions would be able to watch us.  Well, that day is almost here. And people are freaking out.

Comcast has announced that it is working on technology that would allow your television to see who’s watching it and adjust the programming and advertising accordingly. For example, if I sit down to watch the tube all my favorite channels–Comedy Central, Discovery, History, MSNBC, ESPN, etc.–will pop up, along with recommendations for shows that I might find interesting. If my girlfriend comes into the room the device would ostensibly add TLC, the Food Network, and some info about the impending Grey’s Anatomy disaster. And if my cat manages to pull his fat ass up onto the couch, Animal Planet should magically appear.

The promise of this technology is that, beyond programming, it will allow advertisers to target you with uncanny specificity, which will only get more precise as TV becomes an increasingly solitary experience. They’re calling it the Holy Grail.

And people are up in arms over it.

We get to watch what we want without the distraction of things we don’t care about with the added benefit of commercials that are tailored to our interests, and people are upset. It’s the same thing that Amazon has been doing for years now. iTunes does it, too. Google, too. Even this blog site does it.

I look forward to getting e-mails from Amazon telling me about the latest book that I might want to check out. And, 90% of the time, I do want to check it out. The biggest problem, the only problem I have with this, is that I don’t have the cash to buy the books.

The problem facing Comcast is that it’s using cameras to recognize its viewers and people do not like the idea of being watched. It begs ceaseless references to Orwell, Big Brother, and totalitarian states. It’s not good. And people have the right to be nervous.

What Comcast needs is one hell of a PR plan to alleviate people’s concerns. Nobody will buy into this technology on the face of it. Comcast will have to explain how the technology works, how much data is stored, who has access to that data, and how people will be able to opt out if they don’t like it. And that’s just the beginning of the media blitz.

The moment someone is found snooping through people’s data, like what happened at the State Department this week, the program will be in serious jeopardy.

What Comcast and the other cable operators should consider is some other type of viewer recognition technology. You have to sign in to get into your Amazon account, iTunes account, and so on. It serves the same purpose as camera recognition technology, namely that it tailors all recommendations to your interests, but without the hassle of looking like the government of Oceana. It works on the Internet. Why wouldn’t it work on TV?

This is an extremely delicate situation and Comcast has to appreciate it and recognize it for what it is. Otherwise, we’re going to party like it’s 1984.