Pseudo-Trending Topics (AKA Advertisements)

At long last Twitter has come up with a way to make money! I always imagined they'd do it by opening up little shops across the globe and installing tremendous loudspeakers in them. Then, they could have Leonard Nimoy read your tweets to all of mankind! I'd easily pay a dollar for that. And if even half of its 100 million users did so, they'd make....a lot! Surely enough to pay Leonard Nimoy.

Alas, they chose a different route, one a little more typical to web profiteering. They decided to put up some virtual billboards. Now, any ol' Fortune 500 company can buy their brand a spot on the trending topics list.

The first, and most obvious, problem with this is that nobody actually uses Twitter to use Twitter. Most people access Twitter through one of the many apps available for it. When they do this, they're not privy to the Trending Topics list.

Perhaps, though, the goal for an advertiser buying this premium placement isn't so much to be seen, but to be talked about, and getting a spot at the bottom of the trending topics list could be the spark that sets their Twitter fire ablaze in the online community. I suppose if people like retweeting spam, and they most certainly do (as I strongly feel a good chunk of Twitter's user base is made of of spammers), this could be a workable plan.

The other reason this idea isn't quite twitterific is that it's manipulative and defeats the purpose of a trending topic. The idea of the trending topics is that they will reflect what people are talking about in the world. However, buying your way onto the list, even at the bottom and marked with a "Promoted" sticker, is like buying your way through college. You didn't earn that degree, and it belittles those around you that did.

Twitter missed some better opportunities. The easiest and most practical solution would have been PPC ads appearing in onsite search results. Sure it might not have seemed as revolutionary as buying fake popularity, but it would have been easily implemented and generated a lot of revenue where otherwise they had no revenue stream.

My idea for a Twitter business model, though, is somewhere in between. It's inspired by the new functionality of the Retweet, which causes the original Tweeter to show up in your news feed even when you're not following them. Twitter could easily create a "Premiere Tweet" that would show up in users' feeds regardless of whether or not their following the person making them. This could easily be limited to one or two per day per user and even targeted so that it's somewhat relevant.

This method would be better than simply placing PPC ads in the feed (designed obviously to trick you into thinking its not an ad!) because it would be an actual Tweet, from the advertisers Twitter account. Yes, it would still be an ad/spam, but it would be done in a way that integrates it into Twitter without jeopardizing the virtue of the trending topics list. The tweet could be clearly marked with a special Promoted icon, and users that enjoy the content of the advertweetment could retweet it if they would like.

With some rate limiting, minor targeting and exclusivity of advertisers, this could a more effective means of monetizing Twitter. It makes a lot more sense for me to see a promoted tweet from Disney in my news feed about the premiere of Toy Story 3 than to see Toy Story 3 on the trending topics list without being an actual trending topic.

Oh, yeah, don't forget to tweet this post!

Flirtation

I like to chat up a woman and then not seal the deal, just to leave her confused. You can sense the anticipation in the goodbye.

The two of you meet casually at some place or event. Maybe you happen to sit next to her at a show. You make some idle chit chat and find out a bit about her. She's happy divulging information about herself, appreciates the attention. The show starts, and obviously you can't talk through it. So, now it's just waiting.

Then, the end comes. You look at her. She says the show was nice, even though you both know it sucked. Negativity does not make for good banter. She begins walking away slowly, waiting for that question. "What's your name?" "Can I buy you a drink sometime?" "If I said you had a great body would you hold it against me?" Smiling the entire, awkward way, she drifts further from you.

All the while you just stare at her with a polite smile and nod a sweet goodbye. That you want her is apparent in the body language, but she slips away into the night and lets you slip out of her romantic grasp.

Serves her right, that sexist vixen. The onus must not default onto me. Women, if they truly are of equal intelligence, are capable of asking for and remembering ten digits. Where is my Princess Charming?

Don't Blame Us for Not Watching

I really hate all the blaming of "so-called" fans of Conan O'Brien. It was constantly repeated in Oprah's discussion with her audience after the Interview with Jay Leno. Ninety-seven percent of her audience was on Conan's side, and she asked several times, "Where were you when he needed you?" Two of the fans in the audience admitted to not watching him religiously.

It's our fault, they would have you believe. But it's not, stop blaming us. Old people watch TV because that's life. You wake up at 6:00 am. If you're a woman, you fix breakfast, maybe do some laundry, watch the soap operas that come on during the day and then the Oprah Winfrey Show before your man gets home. If you're a guy, you head off to work. After work, and after Oprah, it's supper time! It's time to eat something and talk about your day. Then, head into the bedroom and begin the daily wind down. Turn on Primetime TV and watch whatever show is your favorite for the given day of the week. Then, it's your local news as you prepare for bed. After the news, it's late night TV as you lay in bed.

That's life, when you're old. The new generation doesn't do that. There is far less structure to our lives, and you see that reflected in Conan's comedy as well. It too lacks structure. We enjoy the unexpected, the creative, the new. We really even will resent the mundane.

So, don't expect us to watch TV when it's airing. We don't eat lunch at 12:00. We don't have supper at 5:00. We don't make our way to bed at 11:30.

But we still watch TV, just in a manner that fits our lifestyle. Unfortunately, that usually involves breaking the law. Again, it's not our fault. The industry is refusing to accept that this is the new way of life. They're not adapting. That's why we weren't there for Conan. We were watching his show, but TV ratings won't reflect it. They're defunct. We downloaded his show or watched it on Hulu or watched clips on YouTube of it.

How is it our fault that the geniuses that run television have done so little in the past 10 years to adapt their business model to deal with us? Do they not realize that the old people are going to die? It's a ticking time bomb here. You don't have a lot of time to get this figured out. TV advertising is already extremely worthless these days, compared to the glory days of yore. You have so much to watch and do that a measly 3 million viewers can be considered good.

It's not Conan's fault, and it's not our fault. The Tonight Show will never have over 7 million viewers regularly. It just can't anymore. Those days are gone. Accept it and adapt. Bringing Jay back is just putting a bandage on the wound in the TV industry. Someone needs to revolutionize the business model soon, or the old people are all going to die, and TV will be left with an audience that it has no way of profiting from.

Coco Continued

I mentioned my position on the late night craziness earlier, but came across some interesting facts to post.

First of all, I want to say that the future of television is going to be very different. It's going to have to be. With DVRs and the Internet, people don't watch TV like they used to and it's only going to become more affected as time goes on. So, they have to create a new business model for it.

It's going to require integration with the Internet, maybe even some degree of interactivity. Product placement will likely take over in place of commercials. Conan O'Brien on the Tonight Show already did a Lexus type promotion, that was done in a very organic way without seeming contrived. Things like that are going to be more valuable as people watch TV shows without commercials.

That being said, let's look to the future. Conan O'Brien may have had lower ratings, but we're not taking into account his support through the Internet, either via Hulu or by illegally downloading the show, or even just clips here and there. During this week, however, he actually is beating David Letterman in the ratings according to this article, and another article I found mentioned his ratings for the younger, and more valuable to advertisers, demographic also stated Conan was leading Letterman. So, he CAN have the TV numbers if needed.

What's more is that he has the Internet numbers. Look at Facebook. Late Show with David Letterman has 63,631 fans. Late Night with Jimmy Fallon has even more at 80,968 fans! Now how about Conan's numbers. I'm with Coco, a group of people behind Conan O'Brien wherever he ends up on television or off, has a whopping 252,122 fans, and those were all acquired since this whole ordeal started. As for Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien, that has 145,314 fans. (Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Kimmel Live each have under 7,000 fans.)

Jay Leno? 48,144 fans! This is the guy they want to REPLACE Conan with, and guess what? At the time I'm posting this, the page is sporting an "I'm with Coco" profile picture, and pledging its support to Conan O'Brien.

It's so obvious! The numbers are there. He's winning on the Internet, and is a clear winner for whatever is to come for Television. He's even winning on television this week! He has the ratings, he has global support and he has the moral high ground. Keep Conan on the Tonight Show!

Here are the numbers again:

• Late Show with David Letterman 63,631 fans
  
• Late Night with Jimmy Fallon 80,968 fans
  
• I'm with Coco 252,122 fans
  
• Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien 145,314 fans
  
• Jay Leno 48,144 fans
  
• Jimmy Kimmel < 7,000 fans

No Show Show for Coco? I Don't Think So So!

First of all, it does no good bashing NBC on moral grounds over this. They have always been an uncaring and greedy corporation. However, they haven't always been idiots. So, yes the executives are all being assholes with the whole debacle of trying to have their cakes and eat them too, but from a business standpoint you can't blame them for having that goal. It's what every for-profit enterprise should have its sights set on. You can blame them for going down a route that will only leave them with no cake whatsoever, or a soggy, unappetizing Jimmy Fallon cake anyway.

Jay Leno isn't really the bad guy here, but he's definitely a nuisance. He's had his time, and doesn't really have much to offer anymore. His new show was his old Tonight Show with no desk and a lame, narcissistic intro. He represents contentment at the expense of creativity and progress. It's not a bad show, but it's boring simply because it's always the same.

I truly believe that Conan O'Brien is a very good person. He seems like someone who cares a lot about his employees and has a lot of respect for the TV industry and the Tonight Show. I say this because part of me was thinking that this could simply be a ploy by NBC to get more viewers for their late night shows. Clearly Conan's ratings weren't great, and if NBC was actually brilliant, then it would make good sense to fabricate this scandal. I know that if people give Conan a shot that haven't before they'll likely come around and enjoy his unique and creative style of comedy. NBC should know this too, so this scandal is a great way to get people to tune in and ask themselves, "So what's up with this Conan guy anyway?"

There's just no way that Conan would go through with such an insidious tactic. So, either NBC is deceiving him (again, proving they're evil, but keep in mind it makes good business sense as long as they don't follow through and ultimately lose him) or NBC is stupid.

Unfortunately, the likely thing is that NBC is stupid. They're shortsighted and not realizing that Conan O'Brien is pure gold for the network. The Tonight Show is of course important as an institution, but it's even more important as a branding tool. Conan is beloved by most everyone, especially people under forty. His demographics are only going to grow as Leno's and Letterman's shrink.

This is one rare case where it bothers me that I illegally download a television program. I'm sure that Conan's actual viewers are far greater than his ratings imply due to the fact that many younger people would tend to download his show. I thought, though, that it's the Tonight Show. They don't need uber-ratings. It will always exist. I clearly didn't account for NBC's idiocy. The entire TV industry has become shortsighted in general and are not adapting to the problem the Internet poses to them. I'll probably write more about this later on, but back to watching Conan: I'm going to make an attempt to watch The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien on Hulu or the Tonight Show's official website just so my "vote" counts in some way.

And wherever Conan ends up, that's where my vote will go. I really believe that cooler heads will prevail. Ultimately, NBC will lose a lot if they let Conan go. Clearly it's time to axe Leno for good, and if he goes elsewhere, so be it. Letterman and Leno have competed neck and neck for several years, and they both share similar demographics. Not Conan. He has his own demographics (far more valuable to advertising and growing), and they're very much behind him. So, a Leno-Letterman-Conan threeway would see Conan kill. Letterman and Leno would really only detract from each other while Conan holds his strong base against their halved audiences and picks up new viewers as the two fade away.

Regardless of what happens, Conan O'Brien is a goldmine. He's not only amazingly talented and creative, but he's got the bonus of being a super likable and nice guy. Whatever he does will be a success because he's simply too good to fail. So, when The Office is gone and there are no more cities or units to make a Law & Order for, there will always be the Tonight Show, but it'll only have viewers for the next twenty to thirty years if Conan O'Brien is hosting it.

Black Friday

The Thanksgiving holiday has been getting me down. It's depressing to see people thankful for things and not being truly thankful for anything myself.

Thanksgiving is over, though, and today starts the Christmas season. I think I can take some comfort in that. Thanksgiving requires one to reflect on the joys of their lives. I don't have joys. It's not like my life is terrible, but there needs to be more. What I do have could probably make someone content, but I am not satisfied with content. And I don't expect to ever reach a point where I'm perpetually happy. However, I would appreciate having more moments in my life that truly make me feel gratitude to the universe. Christmas time, I think, may bring that out.

This will be my first Christmas season in New York City. It has to be the most ideal location for it, too. Millions of people are here, and usually these people pass through their lives withdrawn from each other. They busily rush around the city, continually goal-oriented and greed-driven. I'm not complaining about those motivations, but it does leave little time for true, touching human interactions. Christmas time gives people a kind of pause from the typical individualistic pursuit of happiness. A blanket consciousness of solidarity covers most of the country. We become more willing to consider each other, and do so more easily. For a small part of the year, the pursuit of happiness becomes a joint effort, where the happiness of others brings happiness to us.

It's also a wonderfully materialistic time of the year. It serves as an odd bedfellow to this time of unselfish human spirit. I enjoy it, too. It gives me comfort to know that people can buy happiness. It's an elusive emotion, difficult to understand and maybe more difficult to obtain. Yet, once a year, two completely opposite and seemingly paradoxical world views come together and create a uniform push to a single goal: happiness for all.

Christian Entitlement, An Ugly Problem

This is in response to an editorial essay in Washington Square News. You can find that article here.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Despite this inclusion in our First Amendment, the prevailing Christian attitude is that the United States is a kind of de facto Christian nation. There is a sense of entitlement that Christians in this country have. This sense was evident in an essay titled "Anti-Christianity an ugly problem" by Adrianna Boris published in the November 4th issue of WSN. Citing only one instance of this so-called ugly problem, the essay predominantly opines that our country is a Christian country. However, its thesis seems to be that Christians are unfairly targeted by PC efforts. Are we singling Christians out? I hope not, otherwise we'd be letting a lot slip by. We treat all religions with the same constitutional indifference, but Christians are the ones that never stop complaining. No religion has any claim on our country. We are not one nation under God; we are one nation above all gods.

The only example given of anti-Christian behavior by the essay, whose title referred to this as an ugly problem, was the firing of a man from a Home Depot for refusing to take an "Under God" button off of his work uniform. Rather than arguing about the man's personal freedoms, the author tries to convince us that "Under God" is less religious, and particularly less Christian, than we think. A website, religioustolerance.org, is cited as stating that this phrase is about American tradition, and that it isn't "an attempt to promote Christianity". Holding off on the implication that this means America has a tradition of being subservient to God, let's first go over the single instance of anti-Christianity behavior that prompted Boris's passionate plea for acceptance.

The case in question is that of Trevor Keezer who, after nineteen months of working for Home Depot, was fired for not complying when asked to remove his "Under God" button from his Home Depot apron. Keezer's brother is serving in the armed forces, and Keezer claims the button is a show of support for our troops. However, he also admits that it expresses his Christian faith. Now, he plans on suing Home Depot for religious discrimination.

Home Depot released a statement explaining that they have "a blanket policy…that only company-provided pins and badges can be worn on [their] aprons."

After being notified about violating this policy and told he would be sent home if he didn't comply, Keezer continued to wear it. "It never crossed my mind to take off the button because I'm standing for something that's bigger than I am. They kept telling me the severity of what you're doing, and I just let God be in control and went with His plan," he explained. Despite the severe warning, Keezer clearly valued a piece of flair more than his job.

So, does this one case mean we have an anti-Christianity problem brewing? Christians will likely say so, but they complain about everything. With the Holiday Season approaching, we're sure to hear plenty of it. As part of the upcoming War on Christmas, we'll be sure to hear such lines as: "Why is there a menorah in our courthouse nativity scene?" "Happy Holidays? Don't you mean Merry Christmas?" and "It's CHRISTmas, not Xmas."

It's as if Christians believe this country is their house. They're the host, and all others are the guests, people to be respected and treated hospitably, but they don't have any right to redecorate. The phrase "under God" is like a secret affirmation of this to Christians, telling them "Yes, we're a Christian nation, but let's pretend that we mean any and all gods." Any good Christian knows that the god in "under God" is their god. After all, like religioustolerance.org said, it's a show of our tradition. Boris's essay explained this tradition as a "Judeo-Christian" one, claiming that our culture and society were founded on these morals. The author then goes on to explain how our country's laws parallel many of the Ten Commandments, and says, "If these principles were not a part of our culture and law, chaos would reign." Here she's making the insulting insinuation that we might not have laws against murder if it weren't for our nice Judeo-Christian moral traditions. Surely a people can only be civilized by such pre-medieval philosophies.

Of course, the truth is that our American tradition is one of refusal to accept any king or god imposing its rule on us. There is no special entitlement available to Christians. They have no superior claim to this country or its customs. Maybe when they realize that this Land of the Free isn't a slave to their cult, they'll start to understand what it truly means to be free.