The Laughing Wolf

I've done professional radio work, and got my start at a student station. Like Album 88, we played a lot of things. In retrospect, a lot of it is garbage, just like a lot of what is on Album 88 is garbage. No offense to them, as any station that will play Little Bunny Fu-Fu has moxie, but the fact is that a lot of the current new and cool will be tomorrow's dead and stinky.

Unlike what I have heard so far on Album 88, good 'ol WEGL in Auburn went off the air around 11 or midnight most nights. That was when we struck. There were several of us who would go in and "take over" the radio station and do what we called The Mercenary Hour. Formal programming was over. Requests and our own strange tastes ruled. The first song was usually either Roland The Headless Thompson Gunner or Airborne's Soldier Of Fortune and from there on out it was unscheduled, unsupervised, and a lot of fun. We would play tracks off various albums because no one was playing them; we would play whole albums so people could listen to all the songs; to the dismay of the Music Director, we sometimes went into his domain and got new albums and played them (or found where the forbidden albums were and would play them); we took requests from those who had to be up at odd hours working; we took requests from those up partying; and, we had fun. Anything went, and we would even pull out fun classical, jazz, and other genres, though most of it was rock.

Listening to the music and the good (and very bad) announcers on Album 88 has brought back a lot of very fun memories. Of watching another DJ hold a bulk eraser over a pre-programmed tape that the person who demanded it be played could not be bothered to come in to do. The results were spectaular, trippy, and got a frantic phone call to "PULL IT OFF!" The music the other DJ (and I) wanted to play had already been cued for about 10 minutes at that point, so we speedily complied with the order. Of the problems I had pronouncing Martina's last name. Of hazing new announcers (news in particular) by painting the window of the news or music booth with rubber cement and lighting it while they were on the air. Of a few other things we won't go into.

Thanks for the memories Album 88. Thanks also for the different music and the variety of music played.

-30-

A good example of this model would be news publishing. The impetus for such was the production of broadsheets for specific purposes, such as shipping. These broadsheets held information on the sailing dates and anticipated arrival dates of ships; tides and currents; weather; and other information of use to those in the shipping business or needing to ship items. This expanded, and came to include official proclamations, news of the day, and more. The economic driver here was to make the most efficient use of each sheet of paper, and to increase the consumer base who will pay for said sheets. This eventually led to newspapers and magazines. Over time, particularly within the last century, this technology matured as the customer base grew, such that specialty publications became viable. Doubt it? Just go take a look at the magazine racks in any good book store. Even newspapers have moved into specialty niches, even when they cover a broad range of topics. An excellent example here is the Wall Street Journal: focused on business, but with news of the world and its implications for business.

This specialization curve has been shortening with each new technology. It literally took hundreds of years for publishing; almost 100 for radio; and around 50 years for television. For the Internet, we are looking at about 20 years, and for blogging we are probably talking about only five years total. In that time, blogging has gone from its rough origins to an effectively mature industry with competition not only between blogs for viewership, but also between enabling technologies. The change in enabling technologies, such as the current changes underway in Movable Type and other programs, is a healthy sign even when mishandled from a user standpoint.

Blogging does, however, break the model in that it has never truly gone through a generalization phase at the start. There was no economic demand to do so. Indeed, one can argue that blogging completely bypassed the normal development curve and proceeded directly into specialization. There are a number of sites that provide general coverage, pointers to in-depth coverage of the news and topics of the day. Glenn Reynolds is the undisputed king of this niche in the market. There are others that provide a similar service within a given topic area: The Command Post for war news; MilBlogs for leads to military bloggers; and, Transterrestrial Musings and Rocket Forge provide both gateways to news of space and space commercialization, as well as coverage an in-depth analysis of same. These are just a few samples, and all reflect a new market: generalized coverage of specific topics. This is a very new twist in the old, old, media game and it is a direct result of the technology involved. That technology is also going to continue to change the model, as well as media as we know it.

The end part of the specialization curve is one of extreme specialization, and of weeding out. The fact is, nothing lasts forever and those that don’t deal well with change will die off sooner rather than later. This can be seen in newspapers, magazines, book publishers (the changes there right now are profound, and I find Baen Books efforts to get ahead of this curve well worth studying), and in radio and television stations and programming for same. The blogosphere has had extreme specialization from the start: if you search you can find almost any type of highly specialized knowledge well represented here. There has already been some weeding out. Yet, there is much more to come.

That which comes is going to change the blogosphere and the media. For less than $100.00, any person can purchase a domain, buy the software needed, and establish hosting for a blog. It can be done for a lot less, in fact, so it is well within the reach of even the poorest person in America. This means that almost everyone can establish an op-ed or other online journal. The good news of this is that many divergent viewpoints will be available, along with a great deal of esoteric knowledge that would otherwise not be readily accessible. The downside to this is that quite a few people are going to be starting blogs so they can pontificate upon their viewpoints.

Yet, is this really a downside? In one respect, it will greatly increase the signal-to-noise ratio. In another, it is the realization of a dream of some of the Founding Fathers to have the most possible viewpoints presented. While it will make separation of wheat from chaff a bit more difficult, the technology already provides a means to do so in a fairly economical manner. Nor is technology the only means: already, there are bastions of sorters who provide links to the good stuff as it were. The process of this expansion will, however, do two things.

First, it will tend to move the blogosphere more towards a commercial operation instead of the semi-free model followed today. People value quality, and blogs that provide a needed service, either in acting as a reliable guide to quality information or as a provider of information and analysis, will be rewarded. The final model of this remains to be seen, but arguments can already be put forward for either a fee-based system (subscription), an advertiser-supported system (Blogads anyone?), or both, just as most publications are done today.

Second, it will force a crisis of media. Freedom of the press has evolved from a concept of equal access to technology to that of a self-appointed elite that informs the public. With the exception of certain judges in Texas, the Government has largely stayed away from any official declarations of who is and is not a journalist. To rule in any way on such is a step towards governmental regulation of the press, and wise media moguls and practitioners have worked against this. While there is some de-facto standards set by media accreditation to provide special access for coverage of governmental operations, these have tended to be fairly elastic and most often have been used to ration limited seating and other related facilities.

The expansion of the blogosphere into the mainstream is going to force this issue in ways for which neither the government nor the media are going to care. The government is going to have to face that anyone can be a published reporter, since blogs meet all basic current standards for same. This means either dealing with the legal challenges inherent in such, or in establishing government licensing and accreditation of reporters – something likely to be challenged. The media is going to lose their self-annointed status, and the country club will be open to all. This will not sit well, and I rather suspect we will see some extremely foolish and short-sighted efforts to obtain governmental regulation or licensing in an effort to preserve their special status. This is indeed a huge danger, to free speech, to the concept of true journalism, and to the Republic.

As for the blogosphere, I do see an onslaught of new bloggers and I welcome it. Some will stay, and will become productive and important parts of blogging. Many will be mundane at best, and most of those will likely fall out when they realize how much work it takes to sustain the effort. Given the dynamics of the model, I suspect that this process too will be much faster than in the past. Some will fall out rather quickly. In the process, provided the dangers to freedom and the Constitution can be avoided, we will all be enriched.

As this process spreads around the world, it will also have the benefit of making life extremely difficult for bad governments and extremists. The news will no longer be as easy to manipulate or block. Reporters will no longer be a few individuals who can be controlled, bought, or manipulated. Reporters will be everyone, everywhere, and the news will out. The news will out in ways of which we can only dream, of which the Founding Fathers could only dream. It will mean direct or near-direct access to the source, to the event, such that each individual can determine the event and context for themselves. It will mean a broad range of viewpoints and analysis are available to all. It will mean access to a large number of subject-matter experts. It will mean a global knowledge net.

The meme is already out there, and it is working and growing in ways we cannot begin to imagine. This growth will be interesting and productive, as will efforts to prevent it. For by their actions you will know them, and enemies of freedom will be easy to recognize by their efforts to regulate this new media in any guise.

Yes, it is the end of the blogosphere as we know it, and I do feel fine.

-30-

Yes, there are some who will use it with that intonation that is insulting and more. Ignore them. They are cowards and rarely will do anything unless there is a pack of five or more around; any lower odds, and they are too scared to do anything. Frell them.

Boy is not a Southernism or even a racism. What it is, is a ruralism. Anyone under 80 or so is Boy, particularly those under about 40. It is a way of emphasizing age and experience, particularly by those who have know you “since you were a pup.” It can also be used as term of endearment, or respect, because you went and did something far beyond your years. This is not limited to the South, but seems to be a fixture of rural life around the country. Indeed, I think I have seen a similar thing in other countries and cultures.

Richard Hooker, the author of MASH and Mash Goes To Maine (forget the other, awful, books in that series) was the first person I ever saw who wrote down something else I had observed. In the latter book, he had a character explain that Boy did not matter, it was Young Feller/yung feller/etc. The latter is reserved either for people over 90, or more often those who for whatever reason had one foot over or in the grave. I always heard it that way, and have memories of most people that earned this form of address not living terribly long afterwards.

From this, I learned to never fear being called Boy. In fact, I preferred it. May it be many, many decades – or preferably never – before I ever hear Young Feller directed at me.

LW

Right now, there are only two shows I consider anything close to a must-watch: CSI and Angel.

We are talking the original CSI here, no knockoffs. The characters are good, the science fair, and I admit to a strong bias of liking to see the nerds be heroes and show leads.

Angel is good drama, good fun, and along the way you get to deal with the complexities of good versus evil, good intentions versus what happens, etc. A very well done show and if it is true that it has been cancelled, I hope UPN or someone picks it up, runs with it, and makes a fortune off of it.

I still miss Farscape. I do catch reruns of Buffy, and continue to be amazed at what was done with that show. Throw away lines in the first season turn out to be key plot items later. The details, the details, and that is why these two shows are all-time favorites: the details.

Shows I like to catch when I can include NCIS, Without A Trace, Joan of Arcadia, Kim Possible, and Stargate SG-1. There are a couple of others that look promising, such as the cold case show, but don’t really hit the radar yet.

I do watch news a good bit, and tend to stay towards Fox. If Fox would do a headline show/channel, that would be a must watch for me. I also wish I could get Bloomberg full-time, as it is great for financial information. Financial news is the other thing I try to watch as much as I can.

When I want the idiot box on for company/noise but nothing is on the networks (a frequent occurrence), I tend to go to the History Channel and the Food Network. History Channel is just a lot of fun, and I learn a lot on the Food Network as well. Alton Brown is the man there with his show “Good Eats.”

Shows I no longer watch include Law and Order (any flavor), ER, and Third Watch.

Law and Order lost me for several reasons, including: always white bad guy, always evil corporation, strong anti-gun stance, strong anti-self-defense stance, strong anti-individual liberty stance, etc. Ya da, we should live in perfect police state. Bah.

ER lost its way a few years ago, and I think it jumped the shark with the helicopter falling on the hated Dr. Romano. Not even the addition of new actors, including the beautiful and powerful “Bend It Like Beckham” star can save it now. Add to it a foray into left politics (support for the Dixie Chicks, Carter confronted with and acknowledging of the evil that is America in Africa, etc.) and a strong anti-gun bias, and it all just got to be too much for me. Pity, as it used to be on my must watch list.

Third Watch had a good start, but jumped the shark with last season’s ending/this season’s beginning. It is now waaaay into soap opera land and has a change in focus as well. None of which make me want to watch it anymore.

That is about it. Not a lot out there I really want to or have to watch. Far better to be out and about, or reading a book, anyway.

-30-

All advertisements seek to gain your immediate attention, though not that many succeed in that task. There are several reasons for the effort, but only two need concern us for now. The first is that advertisers want to break out of the rule of three. The second is that they want to reduce the number of times a commercial has to run, in order to save money.

The rule of three is something I first heard of in college, in discussions on advertising and communications. What it means is that for most people and with most things, you have to see/hear it three times before it truly registers in your brain. Cognition and memory are built off repetition, and advertising is just as subject to this as anything else. With three repetitions, the pathways are built and things begin to register.

Obviously, this is not a true rule. Despite many more than three repetitions, my foreign language skills remain well below average – to the point of non-existent. Other things, like touching a heater or stove as a child, only need once. So something that produces pain, pleasure, or strong intellectual interest breaks the rule and provides for immediate retention and cognition. This also means that there are stronger associations for it, and that provided it is not painful this tends to default to a positive setting in the brain. The reasons that advertisers desire this is, therefore, obvious.

Yet, there is another good reason for wanting to break the rule. In order for you to see the advertisement/log/branding the necessary times to have it register, it means that there must be a LOT of repetition. Let’s face it, how many of us actually sit there and watch the commercials during a show? We may sit through one or two breaks, but the others are spent getting food or drink, taking care of things, or otherwise not paying attention to the screen. The same happens with radio as we drive, because of the need to pay attention to the road, conversations with others, etc. Even with an event like the Superbowl, where we eagerly anticipate seeing what those nuts have come up with now the latest and greatest, attention is not 100 percent. This means you must buy multiple spots, say on the order of a few hundred spots to get the necessary penetration within a given market.

There are two major downsides to repetition. It costs a heck of a lot of money to make the commercial and buy all the airtime. Airtime in blocks or events watched by the most lucrative markets can have an astronomical price tag. The other downside is that if you do get really good penetration, you run the risk of oversaturating the market. In simple terms, it means that the public sees/hears the spot enough to develop a hatred for it. Those old enough can think back to the song The Wreck Of The Edmund Fitzgerald which while a great song, was so overplayed that people who lived through the experience literally can’t stand to listen to it anymore.

So, repetition can cost lots of money and runs a real risk of overkill. Therefore, advertisers want something that is catchy in a positive manner (deliberate pain not being good in this instance) so that they can save money and avoid the pitfalls. This leads to ads that are “out there” one way or another. One trend is to seek out things that are cult hits, so to speak, that have not yet hit true mainstream status. You find something that targets in the emerging demographics – those that have disposable now and a lot more in the future when they get jobs, etc. – like and run with it. Do it right, and you get long-term customer loyalty, bring in other demographics that want to prove they are still hip, and get associated with the “next big thing.”

This approach works and works well, when it is done right. When it is done wrong, it can either provide a momentary spike or backfire horribly. If something is truly edgy, the majority of the audience is going to tire of it quickly, and it will develop a negative connotation because it makes people uncomfortable. The “Oh yeah I’m Hip/Down With It” syndrome only goes so far. This means you need to be prepared to move on fairly quickly, even if with another even edgier ad. The best bet is to not go quite as edgy, but either can work.

A key point here, though, is that you have to build on the momentum generated because it is only going to be there for a short time. The edgier the ad, the shorter the time. You need to hit with a segue quickly if you are going to build. A lot of good campaigns have gone off the rails because they failed to prepare for this. All the focus went into the one spot, and that meant that at best there is only a spike in sales. I won’t go into product quality here, except to note that if the product is not good, then even the best ad campaign around is not going to do more than create a spike.

Which brings us back to Quizno’s. The ad pulls something that only a small portion of the emerging age-group/market is familiar with, and with which the general public is not familiar at all. This can and has worked, but only where there was a proper follow-on and good product. The ad will get certain people in the door, but that is all it will do. What I look to see is how long they go with the current ad, and what they go to next. Both will tell a lot about how effective the campaign truly will be. A spike in sales is great, but what the best result is keeping a significant portion of the spike as regular customers. I don’t see it so far, since for me the ad is painful (would rather have had the kittens or the Bush/Blair lovefest, but I tend to play it safe), but only time and quarterly sales reports will tell.

-30-

UPDATE: Because this continues to be a topic of interest, and comments are closing, futher discussion and comments can be found here.