When we heard about Anheuser-Busch's $30-40 million Bud.TV Network, we hoped that something on the web site would actually be worth watching.
The first complaints we have heard from other users was the difficult login process. We had no trouble. Using our über-wideband connection we attempted to view the views, but they chugged and clunked along. Rather annoying.
Our first reaction was "Who snorted the first $29.9 million away?" Surely, the people that developed the site either lined their own pockets or spent the money on cocaine. Somewhere, with all the money spent on high production values somebody forgot the most important part of media production - story. It is kinda like real estate - location, location, location. Story, story, story. People have to have licenses to do all sorts of things in this world, making media should be one of them.
Obviously, some of the content was licensed or acquired, therefore the budget couldn't have been blown on production. After spending $5000 on web site production and a few hundred thousand on production, the remaining money could have been spent on good content that attracted viewers. What did they do, supply 30 people with a keg of beer and $1 million, then turn them loose. This is media production done in an alcohol induced stupor. Maybe the execs that funded this at Anheuser-Busch were equally filled with their own product when they created this mess.
Bud.TV will fail, not because the idea sucks, but the content. Everybody thinks they can make TV or movies. Just because you own a camera and live in NYC or LA does not make you a filmmaker. Most of the people we went to film school with twenty years ago are still waiting tables. What is even more sad is that there are REALLY good filmmakers out there with GREAT ideas and can't get them made, meanwhile somebody soaked Bud.TV for the load of crap on their site now.
Bud.TV would have had better results just burning the money.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Hagel for President? Not Unreasonable.
Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel has been attracting attention as a potential candidate for the presidency of the United States. Hagel is a moderate Republican from the Heartland and his Nebraska bred values are reflected in his politics. Nebraska is famous for a great football team and its one-house, non-partisan legislature. In this heavily red state (no pun intended), it is not common for a Democrat to seek and win office. Other well known Nebraskans are former Republican Governor and very effective Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns as well as Democrats: former Governor and Senator Robert Kerry and current US Senator Ben Nelson. This pragmatic state is home to rural agriculture, insurance, and one of America's richest men, Warren Buffet who still lives in the same home he had when he started business in Omaha. Nebraskans are more apt to elect the best person for the office and not fall hard along party lines.
Hagel could end up as a serious contender as an independent candidate for president. We've had some serious discussions with our moderate Democratic friends in the media industry. There are strong feelings from reasonable Democrats and Republicans that are tired of the arguing from the far sides of both parties; we all want to get back to a civil system in which positive discussion over issues leads to results and not self-serving political results. If anyone can pull it off, Hagel will be the one.
The surface problem with Senator Hagel is that extreme conservatives (and even some moderates) have painted him as soft on war and even questioned his loyalty as a Republican when he challenges the president. This criticism is easily stripped away when his positions are examined. Chuck Hagel is thoughtful, not afraid to confront an issue, and make the appropriate choice based on the right thing to do and not party loyalty. With the memory of the passing of Gerald R. Ford fresh in our memory, it is hard not to make a comparison. Hagel is intellectually honest, respected by many on both sides of the isle. The Nebraska Senator and Vietnam vet probably stands the best chance of uniting the country, winning or bringing the most positive conclusion the war, and setting our country on the best possible course.
Of course, we always try to introduce our media and advertising spin to the blog. This is really our biggest concern. We're rather sure that Bush isn't stupid, but his on-camera public presentations are laughable. Certainly, President Clinton is glib, but lacked the same ability to gain the confidence of the American people and not come off as an infomercial host. We've been longing for a president that can inspire the country with a Reaganesque flare. – Hagel needs to inspire the American voters while the Republicans and Democrats are sparring. Hagel's soft-spoken bull-dog like persona must be transformed into inspirational speaker and cheerleader for America. If we were his campaign director we would be ordering a full compliment of VHS tapes from the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California and start Chuck studying the master of communication, himself.
Here are the things that need to be done as Hagel "brands himself" for president. We have experience at this, we did the advertising work for one independent Nebraska candidate and "freaked out" the Republicans so much, they sent an adviser from Des Moines, Iowa in an attempt to fix the problem – our candidate was up in the poles and attracting voters at a cost of about $.50 (fifty cents!) per vote versus the Republican's more than $15+ per vote. In fact, toward the end of the election the Republican candidate wanted to jump ship from his advertising agency and hire us. Then again, we get paid on results and not a fee for service. We may be small, but we get results for national clients.
The objectives should be:
Hagel's Congressional Web Site
Hagel could end up as a serious contender as an independent candidate for president. We've had some serious discussions with our moderate Democratic friends in the media industry. There are strong feelings from reasonable Democrats and Republicans that are tired of the arguing from the far sides of both parties; we all want to get back to a civil system in which positive discussion over issues leads to results and not self-serving political results. If anyone can pull it off, Hagel will be the one.
The surface problem with Senator Hagel is that extreme conservatives (and even some moderates) have painted him as soft on war and even questioned his loyalty as a Republican when he challenges the president. This criticism is easily stripped away when his positions are examined. Chuck Hagel is thoughtful, not afraid to confront an issue, and make the appropriate choice based on the right thing to do and not party loyalty. With the memory of the passing of Gerald R. Ford fresh in our memory, it is hard not to make a comparison. Hagel is intellectually honest, respected by many on both sides of the isle. The Nebraska Senator and Vietnam vet probably stands the best chance of uniting the country, winning or bringing the most positive conclusion the war, and setting our country on the best possible course.
Of course, we always try to introduce our media and advertising spin to the blog. This is really our biggest concern. We're rather sure that Bush isn't stupid, but his on-camera public presentations are laughable. Certainly, President Clinton is glib, but lacked the same ability to gain the confidence of the American people and not come off as an infomercial host. We've been longing for a president that can inspire the country with a Reaganesque flare. – Hagel needs to inspire the American voters while the Republicans and Democrats are sparring. Hagel's soft-spoken bull-dog like persona must be transformed into inspirational speaker and cheerleader for America. If we were his campaign director we would be ordering a full compliment of VHS tapes from the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California and start Chuck studying the master of communication, himself.
Here are the things that need to be done as Hagel "brands himself" for president. We have experience at this, we did the advertising work for one independent Nebraska candidate and "freaked out" the Republicans so much, they sent an adviser from Des Moines, Iowa in an attempt to fix the problem – our candidate was up in the poles and attracting voters at a cost of about $.50 (fifty cents!) per vote versus the Republican's more than $15+ per vote. In fact, toward the end of the election the Republican candidate wanted to jump ship from his advertising agency and hire us. Then again, we get paid on results and not a fee for service. We may be small, but we get results for national clients.
The objectives should be:
- Voters must understand at least 3 key factors that differentiate Hagel from the Republican or Democratic candidate.
- Voters need to clearly understand why voting for Hagel is important to them as a citizen.
- Any and all advertising should be genuine, testimonials by people that tell his story for him. It is just more credible. Not his mother! If I see one more warm and fuzzy commercial with a politician hugging the kids and playing with the dog, I'll vomit. It is contrived.
- He has to make personal and genuine connections with voters, much like we do for our clients in the music industry.
- Don't use social networking and myspace unless genuine contact can be made with users.
- Use weekly, on-line chats with Chuck and encourage a personal blog that doesn't look managed.
- We need to repeat this because advertising agencies are clueless. The message has to be created from the perspective of the voter. It is not who he is, but what he means to the individual voter.
- No attack ads, even to answer false accusations.
- Grassroots! Word of mouth is the least expensive. Personally, I would never waste a dime on broadcast advertising. It does not get good results for the cost. In fact, we eliminate broadcast for most of our clients and boost their sales as much as 800%. There are much more effective methods.
Hagel's Congressional Web Site
Jerry Falwell - The UnHoly Trinity Reduced to Duo
Today the Holy Trinity, comprised of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson was reduced to a duo when Jerry Falwell slumped over his desk and gasped his last breath of air and reduced his carbon footprint to zero. While I don't plan to join the liberals that are dancing on his freshly dug grave, I'm sorta glad that the trinity is slowly being silenced. Not that I want to see any of them dead. However, all Christianity would benefit if any or all of them would just shut up. If that doesn't happen, I'd settle for a debilitating stroke or duct tape over their mouths. For all our sake, Pat and Jim, shut up!
As a conservative Christian that would never consider himself an "evangelical" I want to take the apple from Eve's hand and stuff it in their mouth, just to keep them from saying yet another stupid thing that doesn't even remotely resemble what I read in my Bible. Dunno. Maybe all of them bought a different version than all the rest of us read. Then again, I have heard the same stupid comments come from the mouths of other evangelicals. So, it is reasonable to assume that they found something written in the Bible between the lines, which is apparently where they spend most of their time reading.
I guess the first part of my complaint is really that any or all of them supposed that they could speak for any or all of us. Somehow, they managed to convince a lot of people that they represent the majority view among conservative Christians. Maybe, many Christians were happy to feel like they had a voice in government again and that religion as an essential part of human existence was again part of the public debate. However, the problem with allowing any of this trio into the debate was their flavor of the Christian world view - which by its very definition including forced indoctrination of the world, with little or no tolerance for other viewpoints.
One must understand that the trio, now duo, has one primary belief which is so dangerous that 18 Muslims boarded airplanes on 9/11 and used those airplanes as weapons in order to combat that belief system. However outrageous it may seem to blame 9/11 on evangelicals, it has basis in fact.
The general view of many evangelical Christians is that part of their role is to bring about the earthly kingdom of Jesus on earth. This includes rebuilding Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, which requires support of Isreal at all costs, having as many evangelicals in public office as possible, and winning as many souls as possible - evangelizing the world. All views that they would have you believe are shared by the majority of Christians. Both Robertson and Falwell stated this publicly, on the record.
Now, first you must know that this view is a view of a slim minority of Christians, mostly those that consider themselves evangelicals. The truth is that history records for us that the prophecies from the book from the Bible called Revelation have been fulfilled and Jesus himself insisted that he would not have an earthly kingdom. Solomon's temple was destroyed and was never intended to be rebuilt - Jesus considered his followers to be the "spiritual" temple that would be rebuilt in three days after his death. Yet they think they can force the return of Jesus as an earthly ruler buy helping God out - as if an all powerful God actually needs their help.
However, they remain steadfast in their belief of Christ's impending earthly return. Muslims remain threatened, because one of their holiest shrines, the Dome of the Rock, sits dead center where the evangelicals plan to rebuild Solomon's temple. There is even a move afoot to collect building supplies for this venture. Egad folks, get the picture. If the Muslims think the monument to Mohammad's ascent into heaven would be destroyed, they would have a reason to target America.
One item of interest. The particular Christian denomination to which our president belongs rejects the evangelicals view of "the end times." This is easily seen in Bush's policies toward Israel pre- and post- 9/11. Prior to the attacks of 9/11, President Bush dispatched then Secretary of State Colin Powell to Israel to put pressure on them to resolve their dispute with Palestine. News stories of the time leading up to 9/11 recorded Powell pounding Israel. I was shocked at bin Laden's actions. Had he been patient enough to wait it out, the United States would have, most-likely, forced Isreal into a more workable solution. It should be noted that we've probably made more progress toward peace with Isreal and its neighbors under the Bush administration than in previous administrations.
Domestically, evangelicals have used the political process to force feed their brand of morality on America. James Dobson, in particular, is to blame for this. Dobson, holds great political influence over conservatives because he once had some credibility. As he ages, his views have become more radical. The big mistake is that Christians have been allowing this psychologist and radio host to set political agendas based on his personal views - many of which are his opinion that he attempts to pass off as Bible fact - and people actually buy into what he says with out ever questioning him.
I place the hatred of conservatives by the left squarely on the unholy trio. Without James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell we would probably not had moveon.org or George Soros. This trio encourage and emboldened an entire generation of evangelicals to pick up picket signs and storm the gates to every abortion clinic or protest every gay rights parade. While attempting to stop abortion and erase every rainbow, they actually made the problem worse. Surely, if anybody is to blame for the huge divisions in our land, this group is at the center of the cross-hairs. Their approach drives people away and is NOT the approach Jesus used to win converts.
So, while some celebrate the life of Jerry Falwell - and with no disrespect to his grieving family during this time - I can't celebrate. Jerry Falwell represented an entire group of people that is more about following a set of rules (religion) and less about a relationship with God. God doesn't want an earthly kingdom - he wants what he had at the very beginning - a relationship with man. It is unfortunate that this trio has done more to drive people away from God than attract people to God.
As a conservative Christian that would never consider himself an "evangelical" I want to take the apple from Eve's hand and stuff it in their mouth, just to keep them from saying yet another stupid thing that doesn't even remotely resemble what I read in my Bible. Dunno. Maybe all of them bought a different version than all the rest of us read. Then again, I have heard the same stupid comments come from the mouths of other evangelicals. So, it is reasonable to assume that they found something written in the Bible between the lines, which is apparently where they spend most of their time reading.
I guess the first part of my complaint is really that any or all of them supposed that they could speak for any or all of us. Somehow, they managed to convince a lot of people that they represent the majority view among conservative Christians. Maybe, many Christians were happy to feel like they had a voice in government again and that religion as an essential part of human existence was again part of the public debate. However, the problem with allowing any of this trio into the debate was their flavor of the Christian world view - which by its very definition including forced indoctrination of the world, with little or no tolerance for other viewpoints.
One must understand that the trio, now duo, has one primary belief which is so dangerous that 18 Muslims boarded airplanes on 9/11 and used those airplanes as weapons in order to combat that belief system. However outrageous it may seem to blame 9/11 on evangelicals, it has basis in fact.
The general view of many evangelical Christians is that part of their role is to bring about the earthly kingdom of Jesus on earth. This includes rebuilding Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, which requires support of Isreal at all costs, having as many evangelicals in public office as possible, and winning as many souls as possible - evangelizing the world. All views that they would have you believe are shared by the majority of Christians. Both Robertson and Falwell stated this publicly, on the record.
Now, first you must know that this view is a view of a slim minority of Christians, mostly those that consider themselves evangelicals. The truth is that history records for us that the prophecies from the book from the Bible called Revelation have been fulfilled and Jesus himself insisted that he would not have an earthly kingdom. Solomon's temple was destroyed and was never intended to be rebuilt - Jesus considered his followers to be the "spiritual" temple that would be rebuilt in three days after his death. Yet they think they can force the return of Jesus as an earthly ruler buy helping God out - as if an all powerful God actually needs their help.
However, they remain steadfast in their belief of Christ's impending earthly return. Muslims remain threatened, because one of their holiest shrines, the Dome of the Rock, sits dead center where the evangelicals plan to rebuild Solomon's temple. There is even a move afoot to collect building supplies for this venture. Egad folks, get the picture. If the Muslims think the monument to Mohammad's ascent into heaven would be destroyed, they would have a reason to target America.
One item of interest. The particular Christian denomination to which our president belongs rejects the evangelicals view of "the end times." This is easily seen in Bush's policies toward Israel pre- and post- 9/11. Prior to the attacks of 9/11, President Bush dispatched then Secretary of State Colin Powell to Israel to put pressure on them to resolve their dispute with Palestine. News stories of the time leading up to 9/11 recorded Powell pounding Israel. I was shocked at bin Laden's actions. Had he been patient enough to wait it out, the United States would have, most-likely, forced Isreal into a more workable solution. It should be noted that we've probably made more progress toward peace with Isreal and its neighbors under the Bush administration than in previous administrations.
Domestically, evangelicals have used the political process to force feed their brand of morality on America. James Dobson, in particular, is to blame for this. Dobson, holds great political influence over conservatives because he once had some credibility. As he ages, his views have become more radical. The big mistake is that Christians have been allowing this psychologist and radio host to set political agendas based on his personal views - many of which are his opinion that he attempts to pass off as Bible fact - and people actually buy into what he says with out ever questioning him.
I place the hatred of conservatives by the left squarely on the unholy trio. Without James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell we would probably not had moveon.org or George Soros. This trio encourage and emboldened an entire generation of evangelicals to pick up picket signs and storm the gates to every abortion clinic or protest every gay rights parade. While attempting to stop abortion and erase every rainbow, they actually made the problem worse. Surely, if anybody is to blame for the huge divisions in our land, this group is at the center of the cross-hairs. Their approach drives people away and is NOT the approach Jesus used to win converts.
So, while some celebrate the life of Jerry Falwell - and with no disrespect to his grieving family during this time - I can't celebrate. Jerry Falwell represented an entire group of people that is more about following a set of rules (religion) and less about a relationship with God. God doesn't want an earthly kingdom - he wants what he had at the very beginning - a relationship with man. It is unfortunate that this trio has done more to drive people away from God than attract people to God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
