It's March of 1985. I'm a senior in high school. It’s a good time. I haven’t yet heard of a company called Clear Channel and I’m still naive enough to think that music is more than just a business…
Growing up in Fair Lawn, NJ meant that, for as long as I could remember, every Memorial Day, the whole town would gather for the Senior Class Softball Marathon. Each year, this three-day, non-stop, round-the-clock softball game raised money for different charities. The senior class was divided into teams that competed against each other, straight through the night and into the next morning, without stopping, while a mass of beer-drinking, hot dog-munching town folk gathered to cheer them on, even at four-thirty in the a.m.
So, it happened that, on one particular sunny afternoon, my friend, Matt Gitkin and I were approached by Howie Friedman, our beloved chemistry and physics teacher who would brag in the halls on a daily basis about being the 38th most allergic human on the planet. Mr. Friedman was a "rocker" in the truest sense of the word, back in the sixties; he lived for rock music and the power it displayed. He told us of his idea to form a student-teacher band to perform classic rock tunes during the first intermission at the upcoming Marathon. Matt and I thought he was joking, as that was nothing new, and eventually, the nutty professor managed to convince us to drag some friends into the madness, while he recruited some semi-sane teachers willing to make fools of themselves singing Steppenwolf in front of their students. We called this student-teacher rock extravaganza, "The Boptones."
We rehearsed in my parent’s basement and after a few shaky months, we dragged our Peavey amps and Ibanez guitars onto the poorly lit ball field (picture Field of Dreams meets School of Rock). We played to a smattering of supportive cheers and polite applause. Our audience didn’t hate us, it was just tough to hear us. The two Campbell's soup cans we used as a P.A. couldn't provide the oomph we needed to really "RAWWWWK!"
That first "concert", Memorial Day weekend in 1985, featured six kids on our respective instruments and three crazy teachers, singing everything from Born to Be Wild, to Runaround Sue to Aqualung. Little did we know what we (or Howie) had started.
Fast-forward twenty years later (Jesus); Matt gets a call from a girl who claims to be on the official "Boptones Advisory Board" of Fair Lawn High School. Huh? Apparently, when we weren't looking, the Boptones student-teacher rock band had gone and transformed itself into something of an anomaly.
No longer are there six students and three teachers; no longer are there soup cans for P.A.'s; and no longer is the concert a forty-minute gig on the ball field between innings. Now, there's a lengthy audition process for both juniors and seniors, during which over one hundred and sixty kids try out each year and only thirty or so make the cut. Now, handfuls of crazy teachers lurk the hallways practicing their best Ozzy impersonations. (Mrs. Levine, the darling, sixty-something Spanish teacher who's retiring next year, is rumored to be performing Black Sabbath's Iron Man at this year's show.) Now, the P.A. is a state-of-the-art sound system, complete with top notch console, lighting board, and monitor wedges for the performers.
Even the art department donates their time and builds huge scaffolding and risers for the performers, complete with fake, crepe paper flames shooting up from the stage. The "gig" has become an event; a three-hour plus party held inside the school's thousand-seat auditorium, and I would be rendered speechless.
The phone call Matt received was to inform him that this year, Mr. Friedman would be hanging up the chalk and moving to Florida, and would we like to say something on his behalf at the upcoming concert? She explained that there would be a short video tribute to him during the show and they could film us saying something nice for his retirement. Matt and I had a better idea. What if the original Boptones were to reunite and surprise Mr. Friedman at the show by doing a few tunes from years ago? Now all we needed was to find everyone.
Thank God most of us from the original band are losers and never moved anywhere outside the New York area. We were all easily reachable, except for Chrissy Campanella. Who knows what she's doing these days? Last I heard she’s working for Clear Channel.
After about sixty thousand emails arguing what tunes we should do, we five surviving members get together a few days before the show to rehearse our short, but emotionally charged, set. The songs are Sergeant Pepper, Runaround Sue, Born to Be Wild, and Sounds of Silence.
The night of the show arrives and the high school auditorium’s packed. Backstage, I glance at the set list. No more Let's Spend the Night Together or Won't Get Fooled Again. Now, there's Bulls on Parade and Green Day's Longview. Dylan was right.
We stand in the wings watching the show and to my amazement, these tiny, little dwarves (I think they're called teenagers) come up to us one after another to shake our hands, ask me where I got my "groovy looking guitar", and tell us how psyched they are that we're there to play for Howie's last concert.
I stood in awe, watching scores of teachers and students sharing the stage and singing away together in front of a mob of cheering and, for a change, happy adolescents; I wondered if Mr. Friedman really knew the full extent of what he'd created that day, twenty years earlier, with the simple idea to play some rock n’ roll with his students.
Halfway through the performance, the video screen is lowered and a "This Was Your Life at Fair Lawn High School, Howie Friedman" piece is shown. After slides and footage of the original Boptones (and me in parachute pants - which I'll publicly deny if asked), Matt is asked if the original Boptones would ever play together again, to which he replies, in true "Behind The Music" fashion, "No way. The five of us could never get along. We were always at each other's throats and there's too much bitterness involved now, so I don't see that happening anytime soon." With that, Mr. Friedman is beckoned to the stage and one by one, we are introduced from the wings. It’s all quite emotional. We lovingly molest each other, and take our positions on stage.
The kids go crazy. It feels like Altamont. (Never mind, bad analogy.) We have a blast playing our songs and for the last one, Sounds of Silence, we bring Mr. Friedman and a few new, younger, "Tones" up to join us; it feels very much like the passing of the torch.
Then the moment comes when I realize how old and out of touch I really am. We’re right in the middle of "Silence", the whole school is singing along, and I’m in the moment, looking down at my guitar. When I gaze up, I see one of the most spectacular sights I'm to witness as a performer; every kid in the auditorium’s waving his/her arms back and forth and a glowing, blue, neon stick is shimmering in each one of their hands, creating a sight I immediately take a mental picture of to make sure I'd never forget. What are those blue things? Are they those sticks that you break in half that glow neon when activated? I can't tell. Then it hits me. They're cell phones. Every kid in the crowd has his/her cell phone window glowing iridescent colors, replacing the obsolete cigarette lighters of old. My brother-in-law holds up his lighter and is about to flick it, when some twelve year old girl, shooting him a very serious look, says, "Um, sir, we don't do that anymore." Dylan was right again.
I realized that at the very least, the one thing I left the school with that night was knowledge that couldn’t be taught in a classroom; that one teacher, armed with the gift of music and a generous spirit, can bring an entire community together just by being crazy enough to “put it out there” and see what happens.
That night there were no cliques, no insults being hurled, nobody getting beaten up outside by the "Green Hill", no teachers being patronizing toward students. Everyone was "gettin' their groove on" together, like one big Partridge Family. And, I couldn't help but think, the next time a problem arises with a classmate, when a temper may cause someone to do something they'd later regret, simply remembering the sight of their teacher singing Black Sabbath with them, might make them laugh instead. What more reason do we need for keeping music programs alive in our schools? Thank you, Howie.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Steven Tyler Accidentally Hits on Himself
Gazing into the full-length mirror left in the back of the room by a P.A. on a lunch break, Idol judge, Steven Tyler, accidentally took his own reflection for that of a prospective hopeful, and began complimenting the singer on his looks, his talent, and most of all, his "sexiness."
Fox is debating whether or not to run the as of yet, un-aired episode in which Tyler is heard cooing, "I can't find a single flaw on you. Even your wrinkles are sexy. My goosebumps are getting goosebumps."
Both J. Lo and Randy Jackson, Tyler's co-judges, tried to tell the googly-eyed rocker that he was talking to himself, but Tyler was lost in his own thought; going as far as to offer a ticket to Hollywood in exchange for his phone number. When the vision in the mirror accepted, Tyler proposed. Having been subjected to week after week of national humiliation, Erin Brady, Tyler's fiance, has reportedly been seen jogging up and down Simon Cowell's block in lingerie.
Idol producers are reportedly up in arms about the Aerosmith front-man using the show's audition process as his own personal dating site, and are believed to be actively seeking a replacement. Sources close to the show say exec. producer, Simon Fuller, is demanding this time they go in an entirely different direction, with a host who's known for his/her tact, grace, and lack of ego. Rumor has it the short list includes Snooki, Donald Trump, and Kim Kardashian.
Fox is debating whether or not to run the as of yet, un-aired episode in which Tyler is heard cooing, "I can't find a single flaw on you. Even your wrinkles are sexy. My goosebumps are getting goosebumps."
Both J. Lo and Randy Jackson, Tyler's co-judges, tried to tell the googly-eyed rocker that he was talking to himself, but Tyler was lost in his own thought; going as far as to offer a ticket to Hollywood in exchange for his phone number. When the vision in the mirror accepted, Tyler proposed. Having been subjected to week after week of national humiliation, Erin Brady, Tyler's fiance, has reportedly been seen jogging up and down Simon Cowell's block in lingerie.
Idol producers are reportedly up in arms about the Aerosmith front-man using the show's audition process as his own personal dating site, and are believed to be actively seeking a replacement. Sources close to the show say exec. producer, Simon Fuller, is demanding this time they go in an entirely different direction, with a host who's known for his/her tact, grace, and lack of ego. Rumor has it the short list includes Snooki, Donald Trump, and Kim Kardashian.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Patriot Fans Create Kickstarter Campaign to Build Tom Brady A Time Machine
It's one thing to lose the biggest game of your life in the final seconds when your team is on the verge of making history. It's another when it happens twice - to the same team... at the hands of the same guy. Add to that the "mission" to win one for the owner's beloved, recently deceased wife, the personal goal of vanquishing the demons from your psyche, thereby reaffirming your legacy as one of the greatest quarterbacks in the history of the sport, and, lest we forget, the bitter, century-old rivalry between the two cities participating, and you can say this was the biggest of big games.
Recognizing the disappointment suffered by their star quarterback, and terrified that, this time, he may never recover, several loyal-yet-delusional New England Patriot fans have created a campaign on Internet funding site, Kickstarter.com, with the hopes of raising enough money to build Tom Brady a desperately needed time machine.
The campaign is the brainchild of diehard Pat, Redsox, Cubs, and all-things-cursed-in-general fan, Charlie Wiggums, 29, of Worcester, Mass. Speaking in an accent which belies his intelligence, Wiggums, a peanut vendor at Gillette Stadium, stated,"Befaw ya go and say, 'Oh, daat's ludicrous. Ya can't build a time machine, numnuts. Dat's impossible.' Unduhstand, weah not lookin' ta build one to take us back to prehistawic times - of caws, dat's impossible. And, we'd get eaten by dinosaws. Weah just tawkin' about twenty-faw howas, heah. Just lawng enough ta get ah stah quawtahback da win he deserves. We figya we can do it faw about ten grand. My brawtha Tawmy's already out at Radio Shack scopin' fa pahts."
One of the first contributors, a doctor from Braintree, Mass who wished to remain anonymous, commented, "This is not happening. There's no way Manning did this to us again. And, if I have anything to do with it, he won't."
As an incentive, those who contribute $500 will receive a Super Bowl 46 championship jersey autographed by the entire Patriot team. Contribute $1000 and you get to ride with Brady in the transport.
The largest contribution, a donation of $5,000, came from Madonna.
Whether or not the campaign is a success, one has to admire the support, loyalty, and denial these great fans demonstrate toward their team and its crestfallen leader. A smaller campaign to "un-bitch" Bill Belichick from Tom Coughlin is also underway.
Prospective donors can visit www.kickstarter.com to contribute.
Recognizing the disappointment suffered by their star quarterback, and terrified that, this time, he may never recover, several loyal-yet-delusional New England Patriot fans have created a campaign on Internet funding site, Kickstarter.com, with the hopes of raising enough money to build Tom Brady a desperately needed time machine.
The campaign is the brainchild of diehard Pat, Redsox, Cubs, and all-things-cursed-in-general fan, Charlie Wiggums, 29, of Worcester, Mass. Speaking in an accent which belies his intelligence, Wiggums, a peanut vendor at Gillette Stadium, stated,"Befaw ya go and say, 'Oh, daat's ludicrous. Ya can't build a time machine, numnuts. Dat's impossible.' Unduhstand, weah not lookin' ta build one to take us back to prehistawic times - of caws, dat's impossible. And, we'd get eaten by dinosaws. Weah just tawkin' about twenty-faw howas, heah. Just lawng enough ta get ah stah quawtahback da win he deserves. We figya we can do it faw about ten grand. My brawtha Tawmy's already out at Radio Shack scopin' fa pahts."
One of the first contributors, a doctor from Braintree, Mass who wished to remain anonymous, commented, "This is not happening. There's no way Manning did this to us again. And, if I have anything to do with it, he won't."
As an incentive, those who contribute $500 will receive a Super Bowl 46 championship jersey autographed by the entire Patriot team. Contribute $1000 and you get to ride with Brady in the transport.
The largest contribution, a donation of $5,000, came from Madonna.
Whether or not the campaign is a success, one has to admire the support, loyalty, and denial these great fans demonstrate toward their team and its crestfallen leader. A smaller campaign to "un-bitch" Bill Belichick from Tom Coughlin is also underway.
Prospective donors can visit www.kickstarter.com to contribute.
Monday, January 30, 2012
From Jules Manson to Jan Brewer to Mike O'Neal. When Will the Disrespecting of the Office of the President End?
What are we saying to the young people of this country when our top elected officials are allowed to behave as if they're on a reality show? And, where do we draw the line between "free speech," and treason? It's bad enough when a meatball like Wis. rep. Jim Sensenbrenner is overheard saying Mrs. Obama has a "big butt," as if she were a substitute teacher. But, when failed Tea Party candidate, Jules Manson, openly calls for the assassination of the President, and his children, is that not treason? Is requesting your constituents pray for the death of your boss, not mutiny?
The immaturity and downright ugliness recently demonstrated by Kansas Speaker Mike O'Neal can only leave one to wonder, how many other ill-informed decisions has this crackpot made when it comes to national policy? Let's not forget, just a short time before, he referred to the First Lady as, "Mrs. YoMama."
It's one thing to do it behind closed doors. It's another when the House Speaker of your state acts like a six year-old and uses his time in office to send official emails mocking the President and First Lady, going as far as to ask other elected officials to pray for the demise of their Commander-in-Chief. And, I'm sorry, but a simple "I'm sorry" just won't do. Because we all know he's not. And, even if he was, the fact that this guy is still allowed to show up for work each morning is a slap in the face of everything his office represents. If a guy at an insurance agency in Passaic is caught mocking his boss on company time, isn't he as good as gone? Why then, is the House Speaker of Kansas still there after calling for the death of the President of the United States?
Whether he was serious or joking is irrelevant. The legal definition of "Conduct Unbecoming" is Conduct on the part of a certified professional that is contrary to the interests of the public served. And, he's definitely guilty of that. Mr. O'Neal crossed a line no politician should be allowed to cross, and he should be removed from office immediately, if not sooner. If nothing else, to set a precedent that this type of behavior will not be tolerated at the highest levels of our government. These are the people we're entrusting to save the world? "Mr. Speaker, there's been a dirty bomb attack in Manhattan." "Hang on a sec. I just wanna send this photo of Obama's head on a donkey to Boehner. Done! Now, what were you saying?"
Whether it's O'Neal or Manson or Sensenbrenner, or Brewer and her pointy finger, they're all just additional examples of a growing line of prominent politicians who seem bent on openly disrespecting, thus undermining, the President (let's not even discuss Trump or Taitz). Is it going to take Boehner putting a "Kick Me" sign on Obama's back during the State of the Union before some sort of order and respect is restored? Shouldn't our politicians be held to stricter ethical standards, than say, a guy who drives a beer truck?
It's a blemish on the Obama administration that began when Mitch McConnell almost gleefully stated his main objective was to make sure Obama was a "one-term president." Right there, Obama should have put his might to use and called McConnell out for betraying the very people who elected him to do a job that he openly admitted he wasn't going to do. Now look where we are. The students have no respect for the teacher.
When you see emails, tweets, and video clips attempting to undermine the authority of the President on a weekly basis, it's almost like the fabric of the nation's conscience is being torn. If our own top officials can put the man who represents our country's integrity in a virtual "dunking booth," without any fear of real reprisal, it's anarchy. If a member of Parliament walked up and knocked the crown off the Queen's head, you can bet there'd be hell to pay. These instances are no different, yet, it's like Obama is a Tri-Lamb and McConnell, Boehner, and the rest of the peanut gallery, are the Alpha Betas walking around smacking him in the back of the head. How can we expect a class of first graders to get along when they see their own leaders tripping each other and shooting spitballs every chance they get? These clowns had better be called to the principle's office before it's too late.
The immaturity and downright ugliness recently demonstrated by Kansas Speaker Mike O'Neal can only leave one to wonder, how many other ill-informed decisions has this crackpot made when it comes to national policy? Let's not forget, just a short time before, he referred to the First Lady as, "Mrs. YoMama."
It's one thing to do it behind closed doors. It's another when the House Speaker of your state acts like a six year-old and uses his time in office to send official emails mocking the President and First Lady, going as far as to ask other elected officials to pray for the demise of their Commander-in-Chief. And, I'm sorry, but a simple "I'm sorry" just won't do. Because we all know he's not. And, even if he was, the fact that this guy is still allowed to show up for work each morning is a slap in the face of everything his office represents. If a guy at an insurance agency in Passaic is caught mocking his boss on company time, isn't he as good as gone? Why then, is the House Speaker of Kansas still there after calling for the death of the President of the United States?
Whether he was serious or joking is irrelevant. The legal definition of "Conduct Unbecoming" is Conduct on the part of a certified professional that is contrary to the interests of the public served. And, he's definitely guilty of that. Mr. O'Neal crossed a line no politician should be allowed to cross, and he should be removed from office immediately, if not sooner. If nothing else, to set a precedent that this type of behavior will not be tolerated at the highest levels of our government. These are the people we're entrusting to save the world? "Mr. Speaker, there's been a dirty bomb attack in Manhattan." "Hang on a sec. I just wanna send this photo of Obama's head on a donkey to Boehner. Done! Now, what were you saying?"
Whether it's O'Neal or Manson or Sensenbrenner, or Brewer and her pointy finger, they're all just additional examples of a growing line of prominent politicians who seem bent on openly disrespecting, thus undermining, the President (let's not even discuss Trump or Taitz). Is it going to take Boehner putting a "Kick Me" sign on Obama's back during the State of the Union before some sort of order and respect is restored? Shouldn't our politicians be held to stricter ethical standards, than say, a guy who drives a beer truck?
It's a blemish on the Obama administration that began when Mitch McConnell almost gleefully stated his main objective was to make sure Obama was a "one-term president." Right there, Obama should have put his might to use and called McConnell out for betraying the very people who elected him to do a job that he openly admitted he wasn't going to do. Now look where we are. The students have no respect for the teacher.
When you see emails, tweets, and video clips attempting to undermine the authority of the President on a weekly basis, it's almost like the fabric of the nation's conscience is being torn. If our own top officials can put the man who represents our country's integrity in a virtual "dunking booth," without any fear of real reprisal, it's anarchy. If a member of Parliament walked up and knocked the crown off the Queen's head, you can bet there'd be hell to pay. These instances are no different, yet, it's like Obama is a Tri-Lamb and McConnell, Boehner, and the rest of the peanut gallery, are the Alpha Betas walking around smacking him in the back of the head. How can we expect a class of first graders to get along when they see their own leaders tripping each other and shooting spitballs every chance they get? These clowns had better be called to the principle's office before it's too late.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Nation's Joke Surplus in Danger of Hitting Lowest Level Since Great Depression
White House - Washington, D.C.
At eight-thirty this morning, Cathy Goodwin, Secretary of Comedy under the Obama Administration, called an emergency press conference and issued a stern warning:
"Let this be a wake up call to all Americans. The report I have before me shows that, due to the overwhelming number of people trying to be funny on an hourly basis on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, and the non-stop texting of bad jokes and insults between friends, the National Joke Surplus is at its lowest level since the Great Depression. So low, in fact, that if we, as a nation, continue to try and "out-funny" one another, every second of every day, we will be completely humorless by the fall of 2013 and China will surpass us as the funniest nation on the planet."
Special agent, Carl Rutherford, has been working undercover in the Comedy dept. for the past several years under the name, "Dane Cook." He states, "As an experiment, Miss Goodwin suggested I infiltrate the comedy field and be as unfunny as possible, in an effort to see, firsthand, how desperate people really are for laughter. We had no idea how successful the operation would become. I ended up filling arenas, being offered movie roles, doing cable specials, etc. All without the assistance of a single, valid punch line. If anyone has experienced the horror of this situation up close, it's me."
As shocking as Miss Goodwin's and Mr. Rutherford's statements are, to some, the joke shortage has been a long time coming. Robert Hedges, founder of the watchdog group P.F.A.F.T (People for a Funny Tomorrow) says his organization has been monitoring our tweets and status updates for the past several years.
"The cracks in the armor are already beginning to show," he states. "According to our research, in the past six months alone, over eight-hundred thousand up-and-coming comedians and aspiring late-night television show writers have combined to post approximately twenty-two million unfunny tweets. Add to that the drab and totally mediocre comments of several million out of work writers - including the three million or so, self-deprecating office workers who feel they should've been writers - and I think you can see the problem."
As to the possible cause or causes of this dire situation, Mr. Hedges stated, "Preliminary data seems to point to the fact that we're a nation that's become too politically correct. We're simply running out of things to make fun of. Right now, we outsource over eighty-eight percent of our jokes from countries like Poland, Mexico, and the Middle East. One report last November showed that, as a direct result of U.S. Aid in education, the average I.Q. in Poland has risen twenty points in the past two years. And, because we're constantly looking for cheap labor south of the border, Mexico's unemployment rate has fallen twelve percent. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand there's simply nothing funny about a smart Polish guy or a Mexican with a job."
Mr. Hedges goes on to say, "Add to that the fact that, within the next year or two, almost every state in the Middle East will have a sane, non cross-dressing, democratic leader, and you're talking about a serious shortage of material. It's simple math. Take that shortage of material, combine it with the insatiable appetite of each of us to outdo ourselves with a post funnier than the last, and you can see how dangerous the situation is. We're running on fumes as it is, thus, if we don't start firing Mexicans again and treating Blacks and Jews like we used to, we could be facing the greatest comedic recession since the Great Depression."
Jason Fein, an out of work, yet, according to his mother, "very funny" writer states, "Last night I watched this crap-ass sitcom on the CW and, for the life of me, no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't think of anything funny to say. It's scary."
Our ability to laugh; the instinctual need for it. It's one of the most vital parts of the human spirit. It keeps us calm in times of trouble. Relaxes us in moments of stress. Just a simple, little chuckle, here and there, throughout the workday, is enough to give all of us the strength we need to make it through another week. Yet, unless each of us acts now, and stops trying to be the coolest thing since sliced bread, we will no doubt lose that laughter which we all so easily take for granted. None of us want to imagine a world in which you pay two hundred dollars to see Louis C.K. doing "knock-knock" jokes or God-forbid, a real-life Dane Cook. For the sake of our kids, let's all just try and "cool it" out there and leave the jokes to the professionals.
At eight-thirty this morning, Cathy Goodwin, Secretary of Comedy under the Obama Administration, called an emergency press conference and issued a stern warning:
"Let this be a wake up call to all Americans. The report I have before me shows that, due to the overwhelming number of people trying to be funny on an hourly basis on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, and the non-stop texting of bad jokes and insults between friends, the National Joke Surplus is at its lowest level since the Great Depression. So low, in fact, that if we, as a nation, continue to try and "out-funny" one another, every second of every day, we will be completely humorless by the fall of 2013 and China will surpass us as the funniest nation on the planet."
Special agent, Carl Rutherford, has been working undercover in the Comedy dept. for the past several years under the name, "Dane Cook." He states, "As an experiment, Miss Goodwin suggested I infiltrate the comedy field and be as unfunny as possible, in an effort to see, firsthand, how desperate people really are for laughter. We had no idea how successful the operation would become. I ended up filling arenas, being offered movie roles, doing cable specials, etc. All without the assistance of a single, valid punch line. If anyone has experienced the horror of this situation up close, it's me."
As shocking as Miss Goodwin's and Mr. Rutherford's statements are, to some, the joke shortage has been a long time coming. Robert Hedges, founder of the watchdog group P.F.A.F.T (People for a Funny Tomorrow) says his organization has been monitoring our tweets and status updates for the past several years.
"The cracks in the armor are already beginning to show," he states. "According to our research, in the past six months alone, over eight-hundred thousand up-and-coming comedians and aspiring late-night television show writers have combined to post approximately twenty-two million unfunny tweets. Add to that the drab and totally mediocre comments of several million out of work writers - including the three million or so, self-deprecating office workers who feel they should've been writers - and I think you can see the problem."
As to the possible cause or causes of this dire situation, Mr. Hedges stated, "Preliminary data seems to point to the fact that we're a nation that's become too politically correct. We're simply running out of things to make fun of. Right now, we outsource over eighty-eight percent of our jokes from countries like Poland, Mexico, and the Middle East. One report last November showed that, as a direct result of U.S. Aid in education, the average I.Q. in Poland has risen twenty points in the past two years. And, because we're constantly looking for cheap labor south of the border, Mexico's unemployment rate has fallen twelve percent. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand there's simply nothing funny about a smart Polish guy or a Mexican with a job."
Mr. Hedges goes on to say, "Add to that the fact that, within the next year or two, almost every state in the Middle East will have a sane, non cross-dressing, democratic leader, and you're talking about a serious shortage of material. It's simple math. Take that shortage of material, combine it with the insatiable appetite of each of us to outdo ourselves with a post funnier than the last, and you can see how dangerous the situation is. We're running on fumes as it is, thus, if we don't start firing Mexicans again and treating Blacks and Jews like we used to, we could be facing the greatest comedic recession since the Great Depression."
Jason Fein, an out of work, yet, according to his mother, "very funny" writer states, "Last night I watched this crap-ass sitcom on the CW and, for the life of me, no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't think of anything funny to say. It's scary."
Our ability to laugh; the instinctual need for it. It's one of the most vital parts of the human spirit. It keeps us calm in times of trouble. Relaxes us in moments of stress. Just a simple, little chuckle, here and there, throughout the workday, is enough to give all of us the strength we need to make it through another week. Yet, unless each of us acts now, and stops trying to be the coolest thing since sliced bread, we will no doubt lose that laughter which we all so easily take for granted. None of us want to imagine a world in which you pay two hundred dollars to see Louis C.K. doing "knock-knock" jokes or God-forbid, a real-life Dane Cook. For the sake of our kids, let's all just try and "cool it" out there and leave the jokes to the professionals.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
While Everyone Clamors for a Piece of the Facebook IPO, There's Something Not to 'Like'
When Facebook threatened me with banishment for "spamming" in February of last year, I took it seriously. Maybe more seriously than I should have, but, if you think about it, to many of us social media addicts at this moment in time, Facebook is to communication what AT&T was to long distance in the 70s and early 80s. There's no denying we are fast-becoming a nation of "slacktivists," and I'm not proud to be a member, but, what would you have done, if, in 1979, AT&T accused you of making obscene phone calls and banned you from using their service, all while giving you no acceptable means of recourse? You probably would've had to resort to the "soup-can-and-a-string" method when you wanted to say hi to mom in sunny Florida.
Same thing goes in this day and age for us Facebookers. Where do you go if Facebook says you can't play there anymore? Google Plus? Myspace? Please. Sure, you can always start from scratch and create a new profile, but a good majority of us now spend months, even years, creating and building our profiles -amassing, not only a chronicle of our lives -- happily displayed for friends we hardly know -- but, in many cases, incl. my own, creating a network of business contacts as well. Thus, the threat of losing everything I personally spent the last few years building, combined with the shocking realization, that, in Facebook's eyes, you are guilty even if you are innocent, was enough to prompt me to investigate.
I was astonished to discover that a company as large as Facebook, one that's arguably the most influential on the planet and shows no signs of slowing, has no legitimate user support system of any kind. (Don't even try to suggest using the "feedback forums" - where users submit questions and suggestions into the void, n'er to receive a response).
You may laugh this off, and say, "There are so many real and important issues currently facing us, why the heck do you care about Facebook?" It's because of the future. Many of us continue to protest the almost limitless power the Patriot Act gives our government. Aside from a few recent investigations over privacy issues, the way it currently stands, Facebook has its own "Patriot Act" when it comes to deciding the fates of its users, and, if left unchecked, it will only get worse.
More than a tenth of the world's population currently uses Facebook, and, in the coming weeks or months, it will be a publicly traded company worth approximately $100 billion and counting. The only reason Facebook is worth more than fifty bucks is because of us. We put the "use" in "users." We are its stock. And, our information, 'likes,' and dislikes, are the currency of the modern era.
That being said, there's apparently no way for anyone to pick up a phone, or send an email, and receive a timely response from a live human being at Facebook. We're talking about a company that's more powerful than Microsoft (if you had to invest tomorrow, who would you put your money behind?) and the "Oz-like" relationship King Zuckerberg has with his subjects is just plain scary. I'm not talking about trying to "friend" someone you don't know, I'm talking about legal issues like identity theft, pedophiles, stalking, etc., and who knows what else?
The interesting part of all this is, during my search for a way to defend myself against the unfounded charges laid against me, I realized the only way to get Facebook's attention was to sue them. So, I did.
Not wanting to give the impression that I was just another leech trying to make a quick buck, I decided to sue them for $1.00. And, after overcoming a few annoying legal hurdles, i.e. small claims vs. civil court, provisions in Facebook's user agreement requiring them to be sued in California, etc. etc., it worked. Or, so I thought.
I found a lawyer interested in taking on the case and, within a few weeks, we had their attention. Or, more to the point, their out-sourced counsel's attention. Then, an unexpected thing happened; I began getting emails from people all over the country telling me of their own frustrating experiences while attempting to communicate with Oz. The issues covered all of the issues above; from simple threats of banishment for following Facebook's own "friend suggestions," to more serious ones of credit card theft and stalking.
Before I knew it, I had several hundred emails from people wanting to be involved in whatever lawsuit was being put forth regarding user discrimination (or, as I prefer to call it, stonewalling) - and this was only from a few thousand actually reading about the lawsuit - so, my attorney and her colleagues changed course and began to pursue a class action suit against Facebook.
While this was going on, I received a personal settlement offer from Facebook. I would be able to voice whatever changes I thought should be made during a conference call with a senior developer and they would guarantee these changes would be "taken into consideration" (Uh, huh. Like a grizzly bear takes into consideration the pleas of a salmon). All this, in exchange for dropping the suit, relinquishing all rights to sue in the future, and - here's the best part - if I spoke about the case accidentally at a party or in conversation for-the-next-ten-years, I would be in violation of their confidentiality clause and subject to a ten thousand dollar fine and further legal action. Knowing my own uncontrollable tendency to blab about large companies when they behave badly, I knew full well, upon signing that document, I'd go from plaintiff to defendant overnight. All in exchange for a phone call.
As much as I wanted to have a dialogue, which was the objective of the lawsuit in the first place, there was no way I could do it under those conditions, not to mention, the class action was now more important than my personal settlement.
Yes, the class action! To me, this was exactly what I hoped would happen. Through the power of the Net, one person notices a wrong being done to thousands on a daily basis, and, together, they unite and fight to correct it! "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!" Ah, democracy. But, not so fast.
After weeks of hemming and hawing, it was determined the best way to force King Zuckerberg to address the injustices heaped upon the peasants was with injunctive relief. But, even with a dozen highly-trained legal minds on the case, they could not think of a viable claim that would encompass us all. Next came breach of contract, but because Facebook is not currently a pay service, that one flopped as well. They even tried defamation, but, apparently, it's a tough sell in the context of a class action.
Bottom line, after months of research and consulting with several class action firms from Palo Alto to Houston to New York, we soon realized nothing like this had ever been done, and there's simply nothing on the books to prevent Facebook from doing whatever it wants to its users when it comes to unwarranted abuse and persecution. And, in my humble opinion, there's something really wrong with that; the beanstalk grows higher into the sky, while simultaneously crushing the billion or so 'Jacks' who planted it? That's a load o' b.s.
I also discovered, after discussing the subject with one of the more liberal commissioners at the FCC, that he, personally, feels our current laws are dangerously ill-equipped to deal with the exponentially fast-growing pace of technology. He couldn't even say for certain which agency would ultimately prosecute - FCC, FTC, FTD, etc. Granted, maybe the floral chain wouldn't be the best place to start, but they seem to have just as much jurisdiction over this matter as the rest of them.
In the end, my one dollar lawsuit wound up costing me more than $3,000.00 in attorney fees - and that was at the 'interested-lawyer-discounted-rate' - but, what we discovered might actually be useful to some crusading congressman in the not to distant future. That's provided they can tear themselves away from the photo ops with Mr. Zuckerberg long enough to see the problem.
If you ask me, pay or not, Facebook is at least guilty of ethics violations when it plays judge and jury and convicts a user for policy infringements without providing him/her with an ample forum for defense. It's also guilty of the most blatant customer service violations when it 'accidentally' leaks your private information and doesn't even offer a phone number to call to correct it. And now, that the Silicon Valley behemoth is planning on turning on its users and selling their info to advertisers, this lopsided relationship grows even more one-sided. http://tinyurl.com/7fztzba
Most importantly, Facebook's non-existent user response center, and its fight to keep it that way, should serve as a warning going forward to all of our congressional rep's. The last time lawmakers let an online service run amok, someone got killed. The last thing anyone wants is a Craigslist-like incident where some lunatic gets banned for whatever reason, and, because he can't reach anyone to complain about his ex-girlfriend posting rumors about him on her page, he walks into Facebook's offices and opens fire. Sadly, it's not that far-fetched.
I'm no lawyer, but it seems much easier to simply pass legislation making it a requirement for any business - free or not - in control of sensitive user information to provide a valid source of customer help and feedback. Not some FAQ page with answers a monkey would know in an attempt to assist eight hundred million people (the credit bureaus have that market cornered, anyway). iTunes does it, Amazon does it, why shouldn't Facebook do it? If they're too busy, why not make it a contest? Everyone fancies themselves a developer nowadays, so, if Zuckerberg's robots can't figure out a way to handle the world's biggest switchboard, why not offer $25,000.00 and a development job to the coder whose idea best solves the user support issue? Seems they can afford it, and doing it that way would reflect much better on them in the court of public opinion, rather than waiting until congress forces them to.
In closing, I will say, while no one will begrudge Mr. Zuckerberg and Co. their capitalist right to make as much money as they possibly can off the upcoming IPO, Facebook and its staff have an obligation to each and every user who made their obscenely large bank accounts possible. And, to quote Roger Waters, that obligation simply means, "Tear Down the Wall!" Otherwise, we won't 'like' them anymore.
Click below to read the original articles on the issue of Facebook user support.
http://www.webpronews.com/facebook-sued-dollar-david-fagin-2011-04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7tqeeJsyp0
Same thing goes in this day and age for us Facebookers. Where do you go if Facebook says you can't play there anymore? Google Plus? Myspace? Please. Sure, you can always start from scratch and create a new profile, but a good majority of us now spend months, even years, creating and building our profiles -amassing, not only a chronicle of our lives -- happily displayed for friends we hardly know -- but, in many cases, incl. my own, creating a network of business contacts as well. Thus, the threat of losing everything I personally spent the last few years building, combined with the shocking realization, that, in Facebook's eyes, you are guilty even if you are innocent, was enough to prompt me to investigate.
I was astonished to discover that a company as large as Facebook, one that's arguably the most influential on the planet and shows no signs of slowing, has no legitimate user support system of any kind. (Don't even try to suggest using the "feedback forums" - where users submit questions and suggestions into the void, n'er to receive a response).
You may laugh this off, and say, "There are so many real and important issues currently facing us, why the heck do you care about Facebook?" It's because of the future. Many of us continue to protest the almost limitless power the Patriot Act gives our government. Aside from a few recent investigations over privacy issues, the way it currently stands, Facebook has its own "Patriot Act" when it comes to deciding the fates of its users, and, if left unchecked, it will only get worse.
More than a tenth of the world's population currently uses Facebook, and, in the coming weeks or months, it will be a publicly traded company worth approximately $100 billion and counting. The only reason Facebook is worth more than fifty bucks is because of us. We put the "use" in "users." We are its stock. And, our information, 'likes,' and dislikes, are the currency of the modern era.
That being said, there's apparently no way for anyone to pick up a phone, or send an email, and receive a timely response from a live human being at Facebook. We're talking about a company that's more powerful than Microsoft (if you had to invest tomorrow, who would you put your money behind?) and the "Oz-like" relationship King Zuckerberg has with his subjects is just plain scary. I'm not talking about trying to "friend" someone you don't know, I'm talking about legal issues like identity theft, pedophiles, stalking, etc., and who knows what else?
The interesting part of all this is, during my search for a way to defend myself against the unfounded charges laid against me, I realized the only way to get Facebook's attention was to sue them. So, I did.
Not wanting to give the impression that I was just another leech trying to make a quick buck, I decided to sue them for $1.00. And, after overcoming a few annoying legal hurdles, i.e. small claims vs. civil court, provisions in Facebook's user agreement requiring them to be sued in California, etc. etc., it worked. Or, so I thought.
I found a lawyer interested in taking on the case and, within a few weeks, we had their attention. Or, more to the point, their out-sourced counsel's attention. Then, an unexpected thing happened; I began getting emails from people all over the country telling me of their own frustrating experiences while attempting to communicate with Oz. The issues covered all of the issues above; from simple threats of banishment for following Facebook's own "friend suggestions," to more serious ones of credit card theft and stalking.
Before I knew it, I had several hundred emails from people wanting to be involved in whatever lawsuit was being put forth regarding user discrimination (or, as I prefer to call it, stonewalling) - and this was only from a few thousand actually reading about the lawsuit - so, my attorney and her colleagues changed course and began to pursue a class action suit against Facebook.
While this was going on, I received a personal settlement offer from Facebook. I would be able to voice whatever changes I thought should be made during a conference call with a senior developer and they would guarantee these changes would be "taken into consideration" (Uh, huh. Like a grizzly bear takes into consideration the pleas of a salmon). All this, in exchange for dropping the suit, relinquishing all rights to sue in the future, and - here's the best part - if I spoke about the case accidentally at a party or in conversation for-the-next-ten-years, I would be in violation of their confidentiality clause and subject to a ten thousand dollar fine and further legal action. Knowing my own uncontrollable tendency to blab about large companies when they behave badly, I knew full well, upon signing that document, I'd go from plaintiff to defendant overnight. All in exchange for a phone call.
As much as I wanted to have a dialogue, which was the objective of the lawsuit in the first place, there was no way I could do it under those conditions, not to mention, the class action was now more important than my personal settlement.
Yes, the class action! To me, this was exactly what I hoped would happen. Through the power of the Net, one person notices a wrong being done to thousands on a daily basis, and, together, they unite and fight to correct it! "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!" Ah, democracy. But, not so fast.
After weeks of hemming and hawing, it was determined the best way to force King Zuckerberg to address the injustices heaped upon the peasants was with injunctive relief. But, even with a dozen highly-trained legal minds on the case, they could not think of a viable claim that would encompass us all. Next came breach of contract, but because Facebook is not currently a pay service, that one flopped as well. They even tried defamation, but, apparently, it's a tough sell in the context of a class action.
Bottom line, after months of research and consulting with several class action firms from Palo Alto to Houston to New York, we soon realized nothing like this had ever been done, and there's simply nothing on the books to prevent Facebook from doing whatever it wants to its users when it comes to unwarranted abuse and persecution. And, in my humble opinion, there's something really wrong with that; the beanstalk grows higher into the sky, while simultaneously crushing the billion or so 'Jacks' who planted it? That's a load o' b.s.
I also discovered, after discussing the subject with one of the more liberal commissioners at the FCC, that he, personally, feels our current laws are dangerously ill-equipped to deal with the exponentially fast-growing pace of technology. He couldn't even say for certain which agency would ultimately prosecute - FCC, FTC, FTD, etc. Granted, maybe the floral chain wouldn't be the best place to start, but they seem to have just as much jurisdiction over this matter as the rest of them.
In the end, my one dollar lawsuit wound up costing me more than $3,000.00 in attorney fees - and that was at the 'interested-lawyer-discounted-rate' - but, what we discovered might actually be useful to some crusading congressman in the not to distant future. That's provided they can tear themselves away from the photo ops with Mr. Zuckerberg long enough to see the problem.
If you ask me, pay or not, Facebook is at least guilty of ethics violations when it plays judge and jury and convicts a user for policy infringements without providing him/her with an ample forum for defense. It's also guilty of the most blatant customer service violations when it 'accidentally' leaks your private information and doesn't even offer a phone number to call to correct it. And now, that the Silicon Valley behemoth is planning on turning on its users and selling their info to advertisers, this lopsided relationship grows even more one-sided. http://tinyurl.com/7fztzba
Most importantly, Facebook's non-existent user response center, and its fight to keep it that way, should serve as a warning going forward to all of our congressional rep's. The last time lawmakers let an online service run amok, someone got killed. The last thing anyone wants is a Craigslist-like incident where some lunatic gets banned for whatever reason, and, because he can't reach anyone to complain about his ex-girlfriend posting rumors about him on her page, he walks into Facebook's offices and opens fire. Sadly, it's not that far-fetched.
I'm no lawyer, but it seems much easier to simply pass legislation making it a requirement for any business - free or not - in control of sensitive user information to provide a valid source of customer help and feedback. Not some FAQ page with answers a monkey would know in an attempt to assist eight hundred million people (the credit bureaus have that market cornered, anyway). iTunes does it, Amazon does it, why shouldn't Facebook do it? If they're too busy, why not make it a contest? Everyone fancies themselves a developer nowadays, so, if Zuckerberg's robots can't figure out a way to handle the world's biggest switchboard, why not offer $25,000.00 and a development job to the coder whose idea best solves the user support issue? Seems they can afford it, and doing it that way would reflect much better on them in the court of public opinion, rather than waiting until congress forces them to.
In closing, I will say, while no one will begrudge Mr. Zuckerberg and Co. their capitalist right to make as much money as they possibly can off the upcoming IPO, Facebook and its staff have an obligation to each and every user who made their obscenely large bank accounts possible. And, to quote Roger Waters, that obligation simply means, "Tear Down the Wall!" Otherwise, we won't 'like' them anymore.
Click below to read the original articles on the issue of Facebook user support.
http://www.webpronews.com/facebook-sued-dollar-david-fagin-2011-04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7tqeeJsyp0
Monday, January 2, 2012
How the Net Can Fix Netflix. An open letter to CEO, Reed Hastings
2011 hit many of us right where it hurts. But, on a few, joyous, rare occasions, some of us struck back. Case in point, the deserting of the good ship Netflix by 800,000 of its subscribers thanks, in most part, to CEO Reed Hastings having drastically underestimated the intelligence of his customer base.
Attempting to spin off their snail mail DVD service into a separate company, Qwikster, as well as the decision to raise prices by a staggering sixty percent, the seemingly drunk Netflix board brought on a tsunami of outrage directed at the company's brazen CEO. The result of the "Hatings on Hastings" was that nearly a million angry Netflix subscribers filed for divorce from the once seemingly invincible home movie service. Mr. Hastings has since apologized for his incredible insensitivity and short-sightedness, but it was too little too late, as Netflix stock saw a spectacular fall in the final months of 2011.
However, as most good Christians know, the good Lord never closes one door without opening another (unless it's really cold outside). So, one must ask, "Is it possible that the public humiliation of a media giant's CEO; this "short, sharp shock" to Mr. Hastings' once-sturdy system, is exactly what we - the poor, starving, content-hungry masses - need to break free from the mundane, "beat the horse and the horse's agent 'til they're both dead" world of Hollywood? I say, "Yes!" And, you, Mr. Hastings, and your recently neutered yet redemption-hungry ego, are exactly who we need to lead us into battle!
You see, Reed (may I call you Reed?), you and Gordon Gekko were right. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. But, without getting too preachy, not greed for money. Greed for new concepts, new ideas, new writers, etc. etc., Possess greed for the right things and the money will surely follow. All of this leads to one place, sir: Original Content. These two simple words may not only save your company, but secure you a seat at the final table at the World Series of Visionaries ten years down the road, as well.
For those of us who appreciate our entertainment above the fifth grade level, it's a fate worse than death to be subject to the lobotomized drivel heaped upon us by the networks, and it makes matters worse when you realize the goal of virtually all mainstream media is to achieve the biggest payout with the least amount of effort (kind of like the rest of us at our dayjobs).
Remakes, remakes of remakes, and studios doing remakes before the original is even released. Has there ever been a more ripe time for a company like Netflix (who, in spite of the mass exodus of subscribers, still maintains a viewing audience larger than that of Showtime) to be the first of the big Netboys to give the pay cable and free cable channels a run for their money in the area of original programming? Of course, unless you're partners with Richard Branson, you probably won't catch on to this until VirginTV posts record earnings in 2015, and by then, well... get in line.
But, all is not lost folks, for our protagonist is definitely on the right track, as common sense would dictate the best way for Netflix to recoup those lost subscribers, and add legions of new ones in the process, is to offer new shows people actually want to watch and can only see on Netflix. And they're trying just that.
Most of us have heard about their recent acquisition of director David Fincher's (Seven, Social Network) new series House of Cards, starring Kevin Spacey. However, as progressive as they would like us to believe this move is, in reality, Netflix, like all major corporations, is still like a frightened child whose main goal is to constantly seek the approval of his/her peers - hence the willingness to shell out $100 million bucks just for the rights to air a single, new series, which, surprise surpise, is a remake. House of Cards might start the content ball rolling but it still seems to be missing something.
We're already at the point where the big three networks are like sailors plugging holes in a sinking ship. Viewers today want to watch what they want when they want to, and with our busier schedules and shorter attention spans, that desire's only going to increase. Factor that in with a unique, well-written and potentially ground-breaking original series, which avoids dinosaurs and medieval battles, and you can say goodbye to your $75.00/month Cablevision "Gold" package and hello to your Netflix $15.00/month subscription. Perhaps accompany it with a "pay per download" option where non-members are allowed to watch 5-10 minutes of a new Netflix series, free of charge, then given the option to pay $1.99 per episode or $9.99 up front for the whole series. Assuming a series is eight episodes long, that averages out to $1.25 an episode. I think most of us would gladly pay a buck and a quarter to watch one of our favorite shows just like we do when we download a three minute song on iTunes. Additionally, those new viewers might translate into new subscribers. Just ask Louis C.K.
As expensive a risk as it is, "R.H." (can I call you "R.H."?), for the sake of all of the creatively stifled souls out there, I hope House of Cards works. But, going forward, your main goal needs to shift from "How can we develop original content while looking good in tomorrow's Variety?" to "How can we develop good, cheap original content that Variety will want to write about?" The key word being cheap. Ideas that showcase new concepts and talent to your audience at a reasonable budget. Not ones acquired simply because a few big names are attached.
It might be a stretch, but now that every single movie and television studio is willing to overlook their "unsolicited material" policies in exchange for the hope of finding the Next Big Whatever, it's not too unreasonable to think that a company the size of Netflix can find at least two new, talented writers, pay them slave wages, shoot five "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphias" and five "Shameless's'" and, incl. advertising, still come in with a budget nowhere near the cost of one David Fincher series.
Even now, long after their "sudden collapse," the record industry still stubbornly believes putting $100 million into one act is a better bet than investing $1 million into 100 acts. That kind of philosophy is exactly why 80% of folks who used to work at a label are now "consultants." I'd hate to see 80% of current Netflix employees looking for work as consultants because their CEO bet the farm on three shows instead of thirty.
An example of a series that can be shot quick and cheap would be a show created by yours truly, along with my brilliant sister, called Rock in a Hard Place; about a Jewish punk legend who leaves rehab and is forced to live with his mother. Any interested Huff readers can view the trailer below and weigh in on whether or not we're nuts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqXFAqt69ws
Well, there you have it, Mr. Hastings. Shameless plug aside, that is my argument on, not only how the Net can save Netflix, but also how Netflix could actually save the Net. (That's like a screenplay right there; A once regal CEO, now forced to live on the few remaining hundreds of millions in his checking account, enlists the help of the sitcom-induced townspeople, and, together, they not only save the town and help the company reach unimaginable heights, they save the CEO's soul as well.)
I'm sure my formula has a dozen holes, and is most likely ten years ahead of its time, but hopefully, you get the point.
You had the foresight to see the future of video rental when Blockbuster was blind. Now, you're trying to see where the road of online content leads, which is admirable. You just need a better pair of binoculars.
Attempting to spin off their snail mail DVD service into a separate company, Qwikster, as well as the decision to raise prices by a staggering sixty percent, the seemingly drunk Netflix board brought on a tsunami of outrage directed at the company's brazen CEO. The result of the "Hatings on Hastings" was that nearly a million angry Netflix subscribers filed for divorce from the once seemingly invincible home movie service. Mr. Hastings has since apologized for his incredible insensitivity and short-sightedness, but it was too little too late, as Netflix stock saw a spectacular fall in the final months of 2011.
However, as most good Christians know, the good Lord never closes one door without opening another (unless it's really cold outside). So, one must ask, "Is it possible that the public humiliation of a media giant's CEO; this "short, sharp shock" to Mr. Hastings' once-sturdy system, is exactly what we - the poor, starving, content-hungry masses - need to break free from the mundane, "beat the horse and the horse's agent 'til they're both dead" world of Hollywood? I say, "Yes!" And, you, Mr. Hastings, and your recently neutered yet redemption-hungry ego, are exactly who we need to lead us into battle!
You see, Reed (may I call you Reed?), you and Gordon Gekko were right. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. But, without getting too preachy, not greed for money. Greed for new concepts, new ideas, new writers, etc. etc., Possess greed for the right things and the money will surely follow. All of this leads to one place, sir: Original Content. These two simple words may not only save your company, but secure you a seat at the final table at the World Series of Visionaries ten years down the road, as well.
For those of us who appreciate our entertainment above the fifth grade level, it's a fate worse than death to be subject to the lobotomized drivel heaped upon us by the networks, and it makes matters worse when you realize the goal of virtually all mainstream media is to achieve the biggest payout with the least amount of effort (kind of like the rest of us at our dayjobs).
Remakes, remakes of remakes, and studios doing remakes before the original is even released. Has there ever been a more ripe time for a company like Netflix (who, in spite of the mass exodus of subscribers, still maintains a viewing audience larger than that of Showtime) to be the first of the big Netboys to give the pay cable and free cable channels a run for their money in the area of original programming? Of course, unless you're partners with Richard Branson, you probably won't catch on to this until VirginTV posts record earnings in 2015, and by then, well... get in line.
But, all is not lost folks, for our protagonist is definitely on the right track, as common sense would dictate the best way for Netflix to recoup those lost subscribers, and add legions of new ones in the process, is to offer new shows people actually want to watch and can only see on Netflix. And they're trying just that.
Most of us have heard about their recent acquisition of director David Fincher's (Seven, Social Network) new series House of Cards, starring Kevin Spacey. However, as progressive as they would like us to believe this move is, in reality, Netflix, like all major corporations, is still like a frightened child whose main goal is to constantly seek the approval of his/her peers - hence the willingness to shell out $100 million bucks just for the rights to air a single, new series, which, surprise surpise, is a remake. House of Cards might start the content ball rolling but it still seems to be missing something.
We're already at the point where the big three networks are like sailors plugging holes in a sinking ship. Viewers today want to watch what they want when they want to, and with our busier schedules and shorter attention spans, that desire's only going to increase. Factor that in with a unique, well-written and potentially ground-breaking original series, which avoids dinosaurs and medieval battles, and you can say goodbye to your $75.00/month Cablevision "Gold" package and hello to your Netflix $15.00/month subscription. Perhaps accompany it with a "pay per download" option where non-members are allowed to watch 5-10 minutes of a new Netflix series, free of charge, then given the option to pay $1.99 per episode or $9.99 up front for the whole series. Assuming a series is eight episodes long, that averages out to $1.25 an episode. I think most of us would gladly pay a buck and a quarter to watch one of our favorite shows just like we do when we download a three minute song on iTunes. Additionally, those new viewers might translate into new subscribers. Just ask Louis C.K.
As expensive a risk as it is, "R.H." (can I call you "R.H."?), for the sake of all of the creatively stifled souls out there, I hope House of Cards works. But, going forward, your main goal needs to shift from "How can we develop original content while looking good in tomorrow's Variety?" to "How can we develop good, cheap original content that Variety will want to write about?" The key word being cheap. Ideas that showcase new concepts and talent to your audience at a reasonable budget. Not ones acquired simply because a few big names are attached.
It might be a stretch, but now that every single movie and television studio is willing to overlook their "unsolicited material" policies in exchange for the hope of finding the Next Big Whatever, it's not too unreasonable to think that a company the size of Netflix can find at least two new, talented writers, pay them slave wages, shoot five "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphias" and five "Shameless's'" and, incl. advertising, still come in with a budget nowhere near the cost of one David Fincher series.
Even now, long after their "sudden collapse," the record industry still stubbornly believes putting $100 million into one act is a better bet than investing $1 million into 100 acts. That kind of philosophy is exactly why 80% of folks who used to work at a label are now "consultants." I'd hate to see 80% of current Netflix employees looking for work as consultants because their CEO bet the farm on three shows instead of thirty.
An example of a series that can be shot quick and cheap would be a show created by yours truly, along with my brilliant sister, called Rock in a Hard Place; about a Jewish punk legend who leaves rehab and is forced to live with his mother. Any interested Huff readers can view the trailer below and weigh in on whether or not we're nuts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqXFAqt69ws
Well, there you have it, Mr. Hastings. Shameless plug aside, that is my argument on, not only how the Net can save Netflix, but also how Netflix could actually save the Net. (That's like a screenplay right there; A once regal CEO, now forced to live on the few remaining hundreds of millions in his checking account, enlists the help of the sitcom-induced townspeople, and, together, they not only save the town and help the company reach unimaginable heights, they save the CEO's soul as well.)
I'm sure my formula has a dozen holes, and is most likely ten years ahead of its time, but hopefully, you get the point.
You had the foresight to see the future of video rental when Blockbuster was blind. Now, you're trying to see where the road of online content leads, which is admirable. You just need a better pair of binoculars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)