The question here is not rhetorical, I really would appreciate those more in the know on the subject to imbue this post with their wisdom. I saw this on the BBC website on Saturday and thought it was interesting enough to provoke broader media coverage, but alas, nothing.
Here's the story, from Bloomberg:
"China's President Hu Jintao broke with his government's traditional policy of non-interference in a nation's internal affairs by telling Sudan last week to accept a joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping mission to Darfur, China's ambassador said.
"Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya said, "It was a clear strong message that the proposal from Kofi Annan is a good one and Sudan has to accept it.'' On his second trip to Sudan in less than a year, Hu signed a series of aid agreements with Sudan and visited the 100,000 barrel-a-day Khartoum oil refinery in which the China National Petroleum Corp. has a 50 percent stake. Sudan now supplies China with about 8 percent of its oil, and its output is rising.
Hu didn't use those trade relations to pressure Sudan, according to Wang, who said China "never twists arms.'' Still, Wang said Sudan "got the message.''
and this from the Sudan Tribune:
"The two countries also signed a loan agreement for a new presidential palace project of some 100 mln Yen
China has agreed to give Sudan an interest-free loan of 100 mln yuan and a grant of 40 mln for a variety of projects, Sudanese Finance Minister Al-Zubair Ahmed Hassan said.
"The agreements also included a protocol on pardoning part of Sudan due debts to China amounting to some 470m Yen and 19m dollars."
Here's where I'm confused. I think China telling Sudan to accept UN peacekeepers is a big step, because they are typically against that sort of thing (especially when it comes to their own affairs) and may be Sudan's biggest international investor/trade partner, but I don't know that it sends the right message to say "You should really accept the UN peacekeepers some time; but in the meantime, how about a little debt relief and economic assistance." To me, that is a dubious position.
Here's one take from Washington Post op-ed'er Sebastian Mallaby, yesterday:
"Hu's visit was a statement that, in the Chinese view of the world, the principle of sovereignty trumps even the most appalling human rights abuses...By pursuing commercial ties with Sudan, Hu was implicitly saying that economic development comes first and that political development is unimportant.
But then there is an even more disturbing question: What does China's policy toward Sudan say about the West's policy toward China? The West is engaging with China on the theory that economic modernization will bring political modernization as well; otherwise, the West would merely be assisting the development of a communist adversary. China's Sudan policy is an assertion that this link between economic and political modernization is by no means inevitable, even in the extreme case. You can construct oil refineries, educate scientists, build ambitious new railways -- and simultaneously pursue a policy of genocide."
This position is relatively close to what I was thinking, but is this position off-base or missing the point?
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Monday, February 05, 2007
Stating the (apparently) Not-So-Obvious
This past week the Great Boston Panic of '07 morphed from guerilla marketing campaign into bomb scare into "terrorist hoax" into full-scale media-driven farce that ends today with Turner Broadcasting apologizing and agreeing to a $2 million fine in exchange for not being prosecuted. Bloggers, pundits, and columnists have been split in arguing that it was either wholly irresponsible of the advertisers to pull this "stunt", or that this is homeland security run amok and such overreaction is exactly the kind of fear "the terrorists" intended to instill in us.
What seems to be missing from the discussion is the fact that this was all a marketing campaign, designed to promote the show (and upcoming movie) Aqua Teen Hunger Force on Cartoon Network. The show is part of the [adult swim] block, which airs weeknights starting around 10 or 11. The show has a cult following, but does not draw remarkable numbers (even for Cartoon Network), but this act is about as good an advertising campaign as you can get. You can't pay for the amount of times their show has been mentioned over the past 4 or 5 days in the mainstream media. A 2 million dollar fine is pocket change for the Turner Broadcasting Co. and the return on the investment could be substantial if people seek out the show. The act is the kind of thing that will appeal to skeptical, cynical, dissenting young folks and academics, and that's just who the show tends to target.
Maybe, just maybe, this fallout was all part of the plan. In hindsight, it seems foolproof. Those little light boards they hung up in a dozen or so cities are relatively cheap, couldn't have cost them more than $20-30 a pop. Put 100 of them around the country and you've spent $2,000-3,000, which is about what you'd pay to advertise a couple times on TV, and you'd only reach a niche market. But, if by chance, the devices cause a panic, you can come out and explain it was all part of an ad campaign for our show AQUA TEEN HUNGER FORCE on Cartoon Network, Monday through Friday at 10:30pm (or whenever it airs) all of a sudden your 2,500 dollar investment has returned a HUGE audience for the advertising of your otherwise low-profile show. You get about as many eyeballs/ears finding out about your show as those who pay 100 times as much for 30 seconds of Super Bowl ad time.
The pure audacity of the act will draw more new viewers than any traditional televised advertising system ever could. Even with the $2 million fine, that amount of money would not have bought the amount of air time they have gotten. There are those who say they should have at least alerted the authorities, but, in this scenario, that would have completely defeated the point.
It's like the advertisers saw Borat and attempted to apply the concept to this campaign: Make people/an institution look foolish, but do it in such a way that it makes others who see it reflective. Too bad we live in a reflexive society.
What seems to be missing from the discussion is the fact that this was all a marketing campaign, designed to promote the show (and upcoming movie) Aqua Teen Hunger Force on Cartoon Network. The show is part of the [adult swim] block, which airs weeknights starting around 10 or 11. The show has a cult following, but does not draw remarkable numbers (even for Cartoon Network), but this act is about as good an advertising campaign as you can get. You can't pay for the amount of times their show has been mentioned over the past 4 or 5 days in the mainstream media. A 2 million dollar fine is pocket change for the Turner Broadcasting Co. and the return on the investment could be substantial if people seek out the show. The act is the kind of thing that will appeal to skeptical, cynical, dissenting young folks and academics, and that's just who the show tends to target.
Maybe, just maybe, this fallout was all part of the plan. In hindsight, it seems foolproof. Those little light boards they hung up in a dozen or so cities are relatively cheap, couldn't have cost them more than $20-30 a pop. Put 100 of them around the country and you've spent $2,000-3,000, which is about what you'd pay to advertise a couple times on TV, and you'd only reach a niche market. But, if by chance, the devices cause a panic, you can come out and explain it was all part of an ad campaign for our show AQUA TEEN HUNGER FORCE on Cartoon Network, Monday through Friday at 10:30pm (or whenever it airs) all of a sudden your 2,500 dollar investment has returned a HUGE audience for the advertising of your otherwise low-profile show. You get about as many eyeballs/ears finding out about your show as those who pay 100 times as much for 30 seconds of Super Bowl ad time.
The pure audacity of the act will draw more new viewers than any traditional televised advertising system ever could. Even with the $2 million fine, that amount of money would not have bought the amount of air time they have gotten. There are those who say they should have at least alerted the authorities, but, in this scenario, that would have completely defeated the point.
It's like the advertisers saw Borat and attempted to apply the concept to this campaign: Make people/an institution look foolish, but do it in such a way that it makes others who see it reflective. Too bad we live in a reflexive society.
Goodbye (and good riddance) to NFL 2006-2007
The most amusing thing about the Super Bowl is all the people who haven't seen a single snap of a single game all season who make their authoritative pre-game predictions, "Oh, the Bears are definitely gonna win", "The Colts have a better team and they deserve it." Really? Name me one player on their team. Tell me why they "deserve it".
Silence.
That glorious silence lasts only until the game starts (at which time the "which team is which" questions invariably crop up from the aforementioned prognosticators) and the first commercial break hits and everyone gets on the edge of their seats for the first of the vaunted Super Bowl commercials.
What a waste of time and money.
Anyone who watches enough television over the course of the year knows the commercials during the Super Bowl are no more entertaining than commercials the rest of the year. The good part about them is that they are not really designed to sell you product or brand, they are usually just designed to entertain by companies who know you will eventually buy their stuff anyway (GM, Coca-Cola, Budweiser, etc).
Far too frequently, people remember the commercial they liked, but don't remember the product. The only Super Bowl commercials I've really remembered over the years have been Budweiser ads, particularly the original Bud-weis-errr frogs & the "wasuuuuuuup" guys (before they jumped the shark), but I don't know if there is a product on the market that I am less likely to ever purchase. So in the grand scheme of advertising dollars, is the most effective ad the one that is most entertaining, or the one that is most likely to entice you spend spend spend, even if it's not entertaining?
Ultimately, you're still just watching commercials, which 364 days a year we all make an effort to avoid. You have all been brainwashed.
I say good riddance to this NFL season because it brought me an embarrassing, revolting 2-14 season from my beloved Oakland Raiders.
Dear NFL,
When you come back next season, please bring me a Raiders team that, unlike this year, will actually win more games in the regular season than in the preseason.
Sincerely,
Jason
Silence.
That glorious silence lasts only until the game starts (at which time the "which team is which" questions invariably crop up from the aforementioned prognosticators) and the first commercial break hits and everyone gets on the edge of their seats for the first of the vaunted Super Bowl commercials.
What a waste of time and money.
Anyone who watches enough television over the course of the year knows the commercials during the Super Bowl are no more entertaining than commercials the rest of the year. The good part about them is that they are not really designed to sell you product or brand, they are usually just designed to entertain by companies who know you will eventually buy their stuff anyway (GM, Coca-Cola, Budweiser, etc).
Far too frequently, people remember the commercial they liked, but don't remember the product. The only Super Bowl commercials I've really remembered over the years have been Budweiser ads, particularly the original Bud-weis-errr frogs & the "wasuuuuuuup" guys (before they jumped the shark), but I don't know if there is a product on the market that I am less likely to ever purchase. So in the grand scheme of advertising dollars, is the most effective ad the one that is most entertaining, or the one that is most likely to entice you spend spend spend, even if it's not entertaining?
Ultimately, you're still just watching commercials, which 364 days a year we all make an effort to avoid. You have all been brainwashed.
I say good riddance to this NFL season because it brought me an embarrassing, revolting 2-14 season from my beloved Oakland Raiders.
Dear NFL,
When you come back next season, please bring me a Raiders team that, unlike this year, will actually win more games in the regular season than in the preseason.
Sincerely,
Jason
Sunday, February 04, 2007
New Artist: Alice Smith
She's awesome.
Listen to her.
Rolling Stone listed her, rightfully so, as one of the 10 New Artists to Watch in 2006.
"Smith could easily be lumped in with expressive chanteuses like Norah Jones and Alicia Keys, but she has a broader palette than either. On the soulful torch song "Dream," which Smith wrote, she conveys a sophisticated allure that would seem well beyond her twenty-seven years. Rock-cabaret tunes like "Gary Song" and "New Religion" show off Smith's four-octave range, and her reggae-loving uncle gets props on the dub-influenced "Do I." In concert, wearing jeans and a T-shirt, she effortlessly fills the room with her booming alto, channeling Nina Simone one minute, Mick Jagger the next."
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Happy Super Bowl Eve
Given it's immense popularity, I move for the Super Bowl to be declared an official national holiday. Sure there are people who are not football fans and don't care about the Super Bowl (I'm sure they're the same people who are not fans of Mother's Day, rainbows, and the laughter of a playing child) but for most truly patriotic Americans (I hear not watching the Super Bowl emboldens the terrorists), the Super Bowl should be a day of rest, celebrated on Super Bowl Sunday, observed on the Monday immediately proceeding, to allow for recuperation (either from the elation of seeing your team win, or from the depression of seeing your team lose) and remuneration of gambling winnings.
On this years game
All the talk this week has been about the stars in the game, and who will be the difference maker. Peyton Manning or Brian Urlacher? What will Rex Grossman do? Can the Colts continue to stop the run? Blah, blah, blah. It's like these media types never learn.
Look back at last year's game, the most significant player in Super Bowl XL was not league MVP Shaun Alexander, not Ben Roethliesberger the QB wunderkind, not the ageless Jerome 'The Bus' Bettis. Nope, it was Jerramy Stevens, tight end for the Seahawks who dropped 4 crucial passes that cost them the game. Meanwhile, rookie running back Willie Parker had a monster game for the Steelers, and the Seahawks usually reliable kicker missed to field goals. But none of those guys really factored in to the pre-game hype.
2 years back, it was Deion Branch emerging as Super Bowl MVP, while all the sports pundits fawned over Donovan McNabb, Terrell Owens and Tom Brady (who technically had a lot to do with Branch's performance, but still). And in all 3 of the Patriots recent Super Bowl wins, the game was decided by the kicker. So it looks to me that it's not necessarily the stars who are the difference makers, but the 'other guys'. In this game, I think the Colts have better, more experienced 'other guys' so I give them the edge. Colts 30 Bears 13.
In betting news, I read today that the over/under for the length of Billy Joel's national anthem is at 1:44. Take the over.
Finally, this Super Bowl Eve we take a moment to reflect on those who never made it to the big game, despite their best efforts:
On this years game
All the talk this week has been about the stars in the game, and who will be the difference maker. Peyton Manning or Brian Urlacher? What will Rex Grossman do? Can the Colts continue to stop the run? Blah, blah, blah. It's like these media types never learn.
Look back at last year's game, the most significant player in Super Bowl XL was not league MVP Shaun Alexander, not Ben Roethliesberger the QB wunderkind, not the ageless Jerome 'The Bus' Bettis. Nope, it was Jerramy Stevens, tight end for the Seahawks who dropped 4 crucial passes that cost them the game. Meanwhile, rookie running back Willie Parker had a monster game for the Steelers, and the Seahawks usually reliable kicker missed to field goals. But none of those guys really factored in to the pre-game hype.
2 years back, it was Deion Branch emerging as Super Bowl MVP, while all the sports pundits fawned over Donovan McNabb, Terrell Owens and Tom Brady (who technically had a lot to do with Branch's performance, but still). And in all 3 of the Patriots recent Super Bowl wins, the game was decided by the kicker. So it looks to me that it's not necessarily the stars who are the difference makers, but the 'other guys'. In this game, I think the Colts have better, more experienced 'other guys' so I give them the edge. Colts 30 Bears 13.
In betting news, I read today that the over/under for the length of Billy Joel's national anthem is at 1:44. Take the over.
Finally, this Super Bowl Eve we take a moment to reflect on those who never made it to the big game, despite their best efforts:
Friday, February 02, 2007
The Case of the Missing Awards Show
Where the heck are the Grammys? I know they announced the nominees at least 2 months ago, if not more.
It's bad enough that they have those goofy nomination rules, where eligible songs and/or albums for the 2007 Grammys were released between the October 2005 and the September 2006, with nominations announced in December of 2006. Here's how ludicrous the rules are: John Legend is nominated for 3 Grammys for 2 different songs on his most recent album. However, the actual album was released after the cutoff, so he has 2 singles from his album nominated this year, but the album itself will only be eligible next year. ????????
So we have to wait at least 2 months from the announcement of noms until the giving of awards, a full 5-6 months since any album nominated could have been released (the last nominated album released was John Mayer's Continuum, back in early September). I don't much care who wins or loses (they usually have lousy nominees [when was the last time someone who wasn't a top 40 act won Artist of the Year?]), but I don't like having these nominations hanging over my head (I'll throw the remote through the tv if I have to hear about enough about Mary J. Blige being the most nominated artist this year again)
Let's go ahead and tighten it up, give those awards out and move it along. Please, for the sake of my television.
Grammy's....you're officially on the clock.
Well, technically, you've been on the clock since September, but this time I said it, if that means anything to you.
It's bad enough that they have those goofy nomination rules, where eligible songs and/or albums for the 2007 Grammys were released between the October 2005 and the September 2006, with nominations announced in December of 2006. Here's how ludicrous the rules are: John Legend is nominated for 3 Grammys for 2 different songs on his most recent album. However, the actual album was released after the cutoff, so he has 2 singles from his album nominated this year, but the album itself will only be eligible next year. ????????
So we have to wait at least 2 months from the announcement of noms until the giving of awards, a full 5-6 months since any album nominated could have been released (the last nominated album released was John Mayer's Continuum, back in early September). I don't much care who wins or loses (they usually have lousy nominees [when was the last time someone who wasn't a top 40 act won Artist of the Year?]), but I don't like having these nominations hanging over my head (I'll throw the remote through the tv if I have to hear about enough about Mary J. Blige being the most nominated artist this year again)
Let's go ahead and tighten it up, give those awards out and move it along. Please, for the sake of my television.
Grammy's....you're officially on the clock.
Well, technically, you've been on the clock since September, but this time I said it, if that means anything to you.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Give Us Us Microphones!
One final thing that particularly struck me today, watching the non-stop coverage about the Biden flap (for those who are able to avoid the noise, I mean, the news, here's the wrap-up) was the absolute dearth of minority voices in the mainstream media. It was once again a bunch of middle-aged white guys saying "this is offensive to black people", instead of having black hosts saying this is offensive to "me." If someone says something derogatory about homosexuals, they have Ellen and Rosie on daytime TV to go to bat, if someone says something offensive about Jews....well....you go from this.....
....to seeing things like this.....
...but if you say something derogatory about racial minorities (Jews are a racial minority technically, but it's like men being the gender minority, for most people you wouldn't know unless someone told you), you have to count on someone else to do the talking for you, and hope that they "get it", because you don't have anyone from your demographic with the forum for themselves.
Aside from the occasional visit by Al Sharpton (who, when asked what he said to Biden about the comment about Obama being "clean" quipped, "I told him I take a bath every day") or Juan Williams to the cable news pundits (and even then, usually only when something 'black' happens), there really are not any minority personalities out there offering their thoughts/views/opinions for the general audience. Granted, there are several bloggers and syndicated op-ed columnists out there (Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald, Clarence Page of the Washington Post, Mary Sanchez of the Kansas City Star, to name a few), but they are relatively few and far between and do not have nearly the audience scope of a Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, or (excuse me while I cringe) Glenn Beck. Sports broadcasting notwithstanding, in the (admittedly ever-shrinking) realm of "hard news", where are they? Give us us cable news shows!
....to seeing things like this.....
...but if you say something derogatory about racial minorities (Jews are a racial minority technically, but it's like men being the gender minority, for most people you wouldn't know unless someone told you), you have to count on someone else to do the talking for you, and hope that they "get it", because you don't have anyone from your demographic with the forum for themselves.
Aside from the occasional visit by Al Sharpton (who, when asked what he said to Biden about the comment about Obama being "clean" quipped, "I told him I take a bath every day") or Juan Williams to the cable news pundits (and even then, usually only when something 'black' happens), there really are not any minority personalities out there offering their thoughts/views/opinions for the general audience. Granted, there are several bloggers and syndicated op-ed columnists out there (Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald, Clarence Page of the Washington Post, Mary Sanchez of the Kansas City Star, to name a few), but they are relatively few and far between and do not have nearly the audience scope of a Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, or (excuse me while I cringe) Glenn Beck. Sports broadcasting notwithstanding, in the (admittedly ever-shrinking) realm of "hard news", where are they? Give us us cable news shows!
I've Got A Few Ideas
I've got an idea for politicians: Let's remove the word "articulate" (and it's less benign cousin, "well-spoken", for that matter) from our national political vocabulary, please. No word more regularly causes trouble or problems for politicians than this, particularly when used in reference to black legislators, candidates, or individuals. Let's just go ahead and stop using it.
I've got another idea for the general public: Let's stop assuming we're each more open-minded than everyone else. From a Yahoo article on a Rasmussen Poll:
"Earlier surveys had found that roughly eight-out-of-ten voters express a willingness to personally vote for either a woman or an African-American candidate. However, just over half believe their family, friends, and co-workers are willing to do the same."
Do we really think so poorly of each other, especially those we choose to associate with?
One last idea for authors: Let's stop with the never-ending subtitles on every book. Not every book needs a subtitle. In a 2004 article, publisher William Germano notes, "We've led authors to believe the way to make their book attractive is to start with something general or jazzy, then drop your guard and show what you really are writing about."
Currently, 16 of the top 25 selling books on Amazon.com are subtitled, 20 of the top 25 in non-fiction feature a lengthy addendum. I commend Bill O'Reilly for his succint titling of his latest offering, "Culture Warrior".
The most egregious offender of all is the novelist who subtitles his/her novel : A Novel. Anyone doing this deserves to beaten over the head with his/her typewriter (because as we all know from the the movies, all writers still use typewriters)
I've got another idea for the general public: Let's stop assuming we're each more open-minded than everyone else. From a Yahoo article on a Rasmussen Poll:
"Earlier surveys had found that roughly eight-out-of-ten voters express a willingness to personally vote for either a woman or an African-American candidate. However, just over half believe their family, friends, and co-workers are willing to do the same."
Do we really think so poorly of each other, especially those we choose to associate with?
One last idea for authors: Let's stop with the never-ending subtitles on every book. Not every book needs a subtitle. In a 2004 article, publisher William Germano notes, "We've led authors to believe the way to make their book attractive is to start with something general or jazzy, then drop your guard and show what you really are writing about."
Currently, 16 of the top 25 selling books on Amazon.com are subtitled, 20 of the top 25 in non-fiction feature a lengthy addendum. I commend Bill O'Reilly for his succint titling of his latest offering, "Culture Warrior".
The most egregious offender of all is the novelist who subtitles his/her novel : A Novel. Anyone doing this deserves to beaten over the head with his/her typewriter (because as we all know from the the movies, all writers still use typewriters)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)