This weekend it was announced that talks had broken down between the Screen Writers Guild and the major media companies that buy their product. At issue is the writers’ stake/take of profits the media companies get from distributing the programs/movies online.

From the outside this feels like a fair and, more importantly, negotiable request. Take whatever the producers are making now, posit a growth rate and discount for the cost the producers absorb for distribution – maintaining sites, tools for download et. al. Take into consideration that online distribution is in its infancy. Shake hands and get back to work.

An over-simplified, but not an implausible framework for which reasonable individuals frame a negotiation or talk – perhaps for weeks, but nevertheless talk.

Why the total silence? The strike has lasted well past the point that this is good for either side. 24 is canceled indefinitely, Heros is in hiatus and countless greenlit film productions stalled. Now the grandstanding value is in the negative numbers.

There’s the theory that the producers are unwilling to give up anything. Old school, extraordinarily unrealistic and such a suicidal position it rates a HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

Or they could be arguing over the “potential growth rate.” Makes sense but then they would be arguing.

How about the producers won’t disclose their current revenue, let alone future forecasts? No opening number, means no place to start the talks. Plausible, but why?

A) They don’t exactly know – new and flimsy monetization models befuddle their accounting systems
B) The number has been over stated. The boasts that at least ad agencies such as Starcom (find link) have made that the “TV networks” are making up TV ad losses online are just words.
C) They don’t want the world to know that at this experimental stage they are really just experimenting – spending their money; they don’t want the writers to learn what works online.
D) All of the above

I’m taking D. Now let the talks begin.

One of the things I have been working on, and getting better at, is being a good listener. I know, you’ve probably read those self-help-communications-for-couples books that talk about active listening (hearing, rephrasing, and asking questions, etc.). I think those techniques are fine, but if you really want to be a good listener, it takes effort and practice.

The payoff, and it’s huge, is it will help you in nearly every facet of your life, from your personal relationships to even your business relationships. And because being a good listener is really a rare skill, you will absolutely stand out from the crowd in a positive way. People will notice. Every time they interact with you, they will notice.

#1 Listening is a Single and Exclusive Task

Think about most of the business execs you know. They are usually reading their e-mail, talking on the phone, and playing with the blackberry all at the same time. Listening requires your full attention without any distractions. Be still and look at the person your are listening to.

#2 Process the Information You Hear Without Interruption

Most people spend the listening part of the conversation, simply lining up what they are going to say next, and then coil up like a tiger about to pounce on the first conversational opening that appears. Keep your attention focused on the person speaking. Respond if you are asked a direct question, otherwise just listen.

#3 Keep Your Agenda Out of It, Or Better Yet Don’t Have One

When you listen, just do that. Don’t try to think how you can use this information to push forward your own agenda. Just listen.

Practice, Practice, Practice

Try it for a while, see if you don’t discover the listener in you. So stand out, be a good listener.

Sports Brands such as Nike and Reebok have seldom dropped one of their spokespeople when they were accused of a crime such as: hanging out with prostitutes, doing drugs, raping women, inciting murder, carrying a concealed weapon, or spousal abuse. Similarly the NFL has always been almost delicate in handing out suspensions for a range of abuses and outright crimes.

I’ve always assumed this was the result of two biases: 1) the NFL never wants to offend their players; 2) the NFL believes their predominately male fan base doesn’t want to acknowledge these guys might be truly bad; rather they “made a mistake,” “committed errors of judgment,” “fell in with a bad group” – all thing that, at a less extreme level, fans can relate to.

Then along comes Michael Vick with 60+ dead and tortured dogs poisoning everything about Pro Football in less than thirty seconds.

Nike and Reebok, and the trading card companies Upper Deck and Dorrmuss cut Vick from their rosters within 2 weeks of the first press. So fast they got heat from women’s groups screaming double standard as they’d never reacted so quickly when a player was accused of beating a woman.

The NFL took their usual “presumption of innocence stance.”

Vick made his plea agreement with the Feds. But NFL and Commissioner Brian Goodell continues their own investigation, with most writers assuming he will give Vick a one year suspension to follow his jail time. Tikki Barber proclaimed on NBC’s Sunday Night Football that Vick will be back in the NFL in 3 years.

I doubt Reebok and Nike will be quite so forgiving.

Why is NFL commissioner Brian Goodell blind to the danger his Brand is in? Maybe he thinks fans won’t care. He is wrong. Today’s ESPN poll shows that 83% of respondents don’t want Vick on their home team if he ever plays again.

They know Vick’s crimes are different:
First, this was a felonious enterprise systematically conducted for three years to make money; cold blooded, not a crime of passion.
Second, real men don’t hurt dogs. You may not love them, but torture them as a business? This isn’t something most guys think is a good time. Read the boards; there is very little of “the %$#@ deserved it” going on.

Vick’s crimes make him different and they are already tainting the brand.

The NFL needs to walk away from Micheal Vick.

He is in a different league and it is not the NFL; Commissioner Goodell should make that very clear.

I’m not sure if it matters anymore, but we’re doing it again. With “Geico’s Cavemen May Get Own TV Series,” some likable if kinda surly citizens get their chance to experience society’s triumphs and failures. I’ll give it a watch. Better than watching these cavemen for half an hour.

Actually, it’s not. It could of course be a Worst of ‘06 List, the usual contrarian alternative. But it’s not that either, because I really hate those kind of lists regardless of their focus: our industry, entertainment or dogfights.

Here’s why:

1) They always miss something of value that hasn’t been in the spotlight in the last quarter of the year.
2) They always include something truly ephemeral, that has already absorbed too much of our attention.
3) They always include something unpleasant about a celebrity, competitor, business or personality.
4) They are non-predictive and historically useless as they are outdated before January 15th.
5) They foster the trend to base analysis on the short term rather than a broader, more reliable context.
6) In an effort to reach the number 10 or 20 or 100, they include less important or lesser entries that dilute the value of the entire list.

Lists are great to figure out what to do or not to do. They aren’t so hot for celebrating the accomplishments (good or bad) of a year. But they are all we’ve got.

YouTube. GooTube. Lawsuit. What is the deal? Are the media companies really freaking out about copyright infringement or is all this court action just a bargaining tool? (Or is the term blackmail more appropriate?) Whatever it is, everyone just needs to shut up for a minute and think.

Getting a couple cents for a song in some high school kid’s schlock video isn’t worth the effort. Ripping clips of the Daily Show off YouTube and slapping them up on ComedyCentral.com isn’t going to save the day. The $400/hr lawyers and Harvard MBAs need to accept, embrace and exploit YouTube for what it is and what it can be.

What it is:
Advertising. Free Advertising. Advertising that’s welcomed, not shunned. Advertising that feels honest, not contrived. Advertising for their show, band, movie or product that exists and runs without them lifting a finger.

Here’s a scenario: Bob watches the Daily Show. Lewis Black does a bit that leaves Bob rolling on the floor. The next day, he asks Steve if he saw it. Steve doesn’t watch the Daily Show. Outraged and flabbergasted, Bob hops on YouTube, finds the clip and sends it to Steve. Steve loves it. He’s hooked. He forwards the clip to 3 friends and becomes a loyal viewer.

It’s not rocket science. Dealers have been doing for years. Give a little sample. Wet the appetite. Invite the friends.

What it can be:
The Holy Grail of sales. Forget advertising on YouTube. Forget licensing. What you need is a link to a retail outlet. Like that Mr. T video? Click to buy the first season of the A-Team. Like the song that the weird Lonelygirl15 Joey Potter wannabe is listening to? Click to buy the CD.

Like crack? You’re going to love heroin.

A new eMarketer report indicates that the population of 8-14 year olds online is rising and that they spent $9.7 billion online last year. Wow, sounds like a market ripe for tapping! Sure it does, if you’re the kind of scum that gives our industry a bad name!

The fact is, although selling intent is something that children can understand around 8 years of age and critical thinking skills are developed as pre-teens, a study by Elizabeth Moore and Richard J. Lutz (“Children and the Changing World of Advertising,” Journal of Business Ethics, 2004) shows that pre-teen children do not have critical thinking skills in concert with media literacy to understand commercial messages for what they are.

So please, even if they are spending (their parents’) money online, let’s be responsible about how we approach chidren with marketing messages. There will be plenty of time to build brand loyalty after our consumers are able to understand the concept.

My Great Uncle sent this to my family (100+)….Talk about VIRAL MADNESS!

“This is extremely important.Did you know that the right for African Americans to VOTE will expire in the year 2007? Seriously! The Voters Rights Act signed in 1965 by Lyndon B. Johnson was just an ACT. It was not made a law.

Does anyone realize that African Americans are the only group of people who require PERMISSION under the United States Constitution to vote”!

I read this. I freak! This could change my life. But would it happen? I need to do my own research.

From urbanlegends.about.com:

“In reality, all the Act does is keep in place a set of so-called ‘extraordinary remedies’ meant to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment at state and local levels, where, in defiance of federal law, obstacles to the voting rights of black people were still in place in some parts of the country as of the early 1960s.”

From Wikipedia:

“Fifteenth Amendment (1870): Prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen’s race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting“.

I found more noting my Great Uncle’s information as net-lore.

So is the act still needed?
perrspectives.com
commonblog.com

Ah, the internet, what a great place to find information. Right?

When I refer to any constitution it’s usually mine. In the end I was able to ignore my constitution and learned a little bit more about The Constitution.

All thanks to my Great Uncle! Don’t worry; I gave my family links to The Constitution.