From the category archives:

popular culture

New here? You may want to subscribe to the (free) ABDPBT RSS feed. For an explanation of how RSS subscriptions work, please see this explanatory post. Or, you can sign up to receive new ABDPBT posts by email (also free).

Mr. Right-Click left a copy of the latest Wired magazine on my vanity this morning. He claimed that there were some things of interest in it for me, and while flipping through it, he said, “See, they’ll have all this cool stuff, and then they bust out with something like this:
[singlepic=200,440,330,,center]
. . . and then their credibility goes down the toilet.”
.
Wired seems to forget that all geeks are not the same. And while this little how-to feature is presumably meant to be tongue-in-cheek, it just ends up being stupid because it doesn’t have a target audience. It makes the mistake of thinking all geeks are the same.
.
One would assume that Wired readers could care less about having spent their “formative years favoring the Vulcan salute,” right? Because now, they’re all grown up. And they became software millionaires. Or dot com millionaires. Or web 2.0 millionaires. And, geek or not, they’re laughing all the way to the bank, right?
.
Well, not so much.
.
Because people who care about Vulcans and technology entrepreneurs are not the same group, are they? I mean a real geek-gone-rich is somebody who has business sense AND just happens to be gifted with computers and technology, and/or knows who to hire to do what, when, like any gifted entrepreneur. Perhaps if Nancy Miller, a former Entertainment Weekly writer who lives in LA, spent some time in Silicon Valley or–hey, just some time on the internet–she would realize this.
.
A geek of the Star Trek variety is not necessarily going to be the most gifted businessman, generally speaking. Because nobody wants to buy their apps or databases–or whatever the hell it is that these people do–from someone who insists that Klingon is a real language. They want somebody who maybe is a little nerdy, but still is personable and has their eye set on technology, the future, AND the market. Look at the Klingons’ website. It’s a word document uploaded on the interwebs View definition in a new window. These geeks don’t even know CSS!
.
The true geeks, the ones that people are addressing here–are the most extreme kind of geek. These are geeks who CARE WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF THEM, which means they might not even realize that they are geeks. No, worse, this is a magazine printed for geeks who are good in business, but also read by people who are just plain old geeks, who aren’t good at business, and aren’t funny–and we have staff writers, who are neither geeks, good at business, nor funny, NOR in touch with what unfunny geeks like . . . and these are the people coming up with the idea for a story.
.
So, how much would a 3/4 ad cost in the printed issue of Wired? I’m not sure, but it’s certainly in the tens of thousands at the very least, no? Is this story worth tens of thousands of dollars or more in reader enjoyment? And people wonder why the publishing business is in the toilet! I am trying to picture the pitch session for this thing.
.
Nancy Miller: So I have an idea. A nearly full-page, complete with graphics humor piece.
Wired: Sounds great!
NM: So, basically, what we do is, we teach people how to high-five.
W: Right.
NM: We do it with lots of demographically appropriate references to popular culture and kicky retro graphics. They’ll eat it up.
W: So, the premise is that you would be teaching people how to do a high-five–
NM: Properly. How to do it properly.
W: I’m having a hard time picturing this.
NM: Look, Wired readers want to be cool, just like everyone else.
W: Right.
NM: So we make this graphic up, and we sort of appeal to their uncoolness, like that is a source of cool–say something about Star Trek. And 21 Jump Street.
W: I’m not sure that–
NM: And we’re doing a public service, too, because, really–it’s embarrassing to do this incorrectly
W: People do it incorrectly? Really? Wasn’t 21 Jump Street more of a chick show?
NW: Geeks like to watch Scrubs. We’ll piggy back off their characterization of Todd–he’s always high-fiving people.
W: People want to be like Todd?
NW: No! That’s the joke.
W: Oh.
NW: And then we’ll spice up the copy with catchphrases and hot terms like “bogie,” “mitts,” “wingman,” “fist bump.”
W: Isn’t “fist-bump” some kind of Obama thing? I’m not sure that we want to appear as though we are favoring one side or the other.
NW: Well, it’s tongue in cheek, you see.
W: Right, but where’s the tongue, and who’s cheek is it? I’m lost.
NW: Listen, I used to write about celebrities. I think it’s safe to say I know what’s HOT.
.
This is the problem with writers going from one magazine to the next–sure, the basic raw skills are the same, and a good writer here is a good writer there. But readers are having a hard time giving any credibility to anyone anymore, because the writers are so divorced from their topics that they don’t seem to even understand audience anymore. This is why people like blogs, Wired and all you other magazines* out there who can’t seem to remember who your readers are.

.
*Domino, I’m looking in your direction. Your audience needs to know how to remodel on a budget–not how to make your house look fantastic with $3,000 table lamps.

Boulevard of Broken Dreams

by anna on 09.11.2008

[singlepic=176,440,330,,center]

Jon and Kate now have a billboard of their own on the Sunset Strip in West Hollywood, which is like the Times Square of Los Angeles, in case you’ve never visited it. But what’s that totally black building underneath it, you know right below the sign, below the ominous storm clouds that were gathering, this morning–September 11th, strangely enough–oh it’s the Viper Room. Why do I know that name? Hmmm, is it because it is a nightclub owned by Johnny Depp. No, that’s not it. Although that’s a strange juxtaposition, isn’t it? Are there a bunch of barfly clubkids who like to watch TLC while getting ready to go out on the town? Dunno.

Wait, I know why it’s familiar! I know! The billboard is directly above where River Phoenix died.
[singlepic=177,440,330,,center]
What I want to know is, when they show Kate constantly on the phone now, is she talking to a PR person? Because if so, tell me their name so I can know WHO NOT TO HIRE in the event View definition in a new window I ever get famous.

Twits, Tweets, and Fail Whales

by anna on 08.20.2008

[singlepic=98,440,330,,center]
Hey everybody, don’t forget to put your entries in for the inaugural ABDPBT Sucky Sweepstakes. Yeah, that’s right, I’m telling you that you have more time, you know why? Because I live on the West Coast, and it’s only 7:25 am here! So you have another two to two and a half hours. Good luck!
.

There’s an article about Twitter in Business Week this morning. In a nutshell, it argues that Twitter’s financial prowess is more limited than people had hoped, basically because all the “connections” you make with people on it are not equal. Therefore, it’s efficacy as a marketing tool is questionable. From the article:

But [Metcalfe's Law] doesn’t apply to Twitter. The explanation why comes from two fellows named Zipf and Dunbar. Back in 1935, linguist George Zipf noticed that words in the English language are used in an interesting pattern. “The” is spoken most commonly, making up 7% of all utterances; “of” is the second-most common word, used exactly one-half as often as “the”…and the pattern continues with the 100th word in popularity being used only 1/100th as often. Zipf’s Law suggests that each subsequent thing in any series (such as your Twitter contacts) has predictable diminishing value. Your spouse is more important than your best friend, who outranks your boss, colleague, and that guy you met on a plane from Chicago. Inside the 2.3 million-strong Twitter network, not all connections are equal, and some will never be used at all. You will probably never send tweets to ice skaters in Finland.

Point taken. However, a larger problem with the hopes for meteoric advertising success of Twitter, IMO, is the dipwads who use it. Now, don’t get me wrong, I use it–but I started doing so because it apparently is a networking tool for bloggers that is key to spreading your popularity. (BTW I have not really gotten any more users via Twitter that I know of, but I’m still waiting). After I started using it, I noted that it’s great for one liners that come up during the day–things that aren’t really worthy of a whole blog post, but are funny anyway and you want to keep a record of them.

So, yeah, I have a “tweets” section on my blog, but I’m pretty skeptical of the service in general. Why? Not because I think all connections aren’t equal–of course they’re not, duh–it’s because MOST PEOPLE HAVE NOTHING INTERESTING TO SAY. And I’m not going to listen to somebody who has nothing interesting to say, whether they are talking about lipgloss or their husband’s unemployment.

Dear Google, Part II

by anna on 07.21.2008

If your stupid ad sense codes don’t stop fucking with the speed of this site, I’m going to have to take them off of here.

And yes, I make this threat fully aware that I will be forfeiting my right to cash in in on all those click-throughs for Fatloss4idiots. It’s a chance I’m willing to take.

Signed,
Anna