OK, this time I had help.
If you recall, last week I guest blogged on A Mistake's site. This post evolved out of a discussion that he and I had over the budget negotiations in New York State.
A Mistake is much more in the know about NY state politics (he knows people and knows people who know people) and during our discussion he affirmed my belief that Shelly Silver was essentially running the state because Gov. Paterson and Sen. Smith had no clue what to do or how to lead.
And what do you know: according to the New York Times we were right (scooped you again). Turns out this budget is all Silver. Here are the telling quotes in this article:
Mr. Paterson, who no longer has a discernable ideology, is being increasingly marginalized. When he was laboring in obscurity as Senate minority leader, he was a champion of open government; as governor, he has been a sharp critic of the concept.
and
“I can’t see what the governor got out of it, or what the Senate majority leader got out of it,” said Kenneth Adams, the chief executive of the Business Council of New York State. “If it’s done by three people and two of them didn’t get much out of it, it certainly sounds like the third person gets the spoils.”
Right now I am wondering if Paterson should even bother to run in 2010. He just got punked by a man who has one of the safest political jobs in the U.S. Paterson is getting all of the blame for a budget he didn't even want.
Come on Governor, at least if you are getting f**ked you should enjoy it. Your predicessor did.
Last night there was a small, but significant change on the internets. The New York Times launched a "Global Edition" and quietly shifted the look of the International Herald Tribune (Wiki) site to essentially match this new edition (note the slight difference in the mastheads).
Few Times readers may have noticed this shift. I'll admit that I did see the link to the new addition, but it was not until A Mistake pointed out the Trib tie-in that I realized what the Times is really up to: they are taking the NY Times brand global and are (I think) retiring the Tribune.
Think about it this way: the Tribune had been owned by the Times and the Washington Post for many years. Last year the Times completed a buy-out of the Post's stake in the overseas paper and now owns it outright. The Trib has essentially been a paper in name only for a long time. The pages were full of Times and Post reprints with a little extra global content and "exotic" sports (great cricket coverage). But the locals don't buy it, the tourists and ex-pats do. They know the name, and the content is familar (and I believe credited to the sorce paper).
So your the Times and now you own the international paper outright. And you are cutting back on costs including overses reporting. What do you do with the this paper that most people know is yours anyway? You retire it.
In my mind this makes a lot of sense:
- The Times can mimic the sucessful models of Time and Newsweek with thier international editions and have an overseas version of thier paper that tourist will immediatly recognize on the newsstands
- They can unify two websites and mimic funcationality and content management of both
- They can use the "Global" site as an incubator for new ideas -- those that work get pushed to the "core" website, those that don't get shelved
- This opens up the opportunity for fully global ad buys across both sites and papers (and less competition for ad dollars)
- The Times gets to elevate their brand, further solidifying their position as the "national" paper of the U.S. (sorry The USA Today) while taking out an aging, less popular brand (sorry Tribune, you had a good run)
- Shared content allows for "special reports" from one publication to another with minimal reader confusion
- Consolidated news rooms save money
Then again, they are the Times so we know they don't always make the best business decisions.
Additional coverage from Reuters and Editor & Publisher.
What father doesn't want to hear this from their (almost) three year old daughter:
Daddy, I want to listen to The Steve Miller Band.
Yes, that's right, MLTU has gone right from her Beatles phase, through her "kid rock" phase (I have to say, as kid rock goes, Uncle Rock is excellent), past her Muppet phase, right into her 70s "classic rock" phase. She LOVES The Steve Miller Band. She dances to it and requests it more than once a day.
Now, I have considered the less than PG lyrics that I may need to explain to her one day, including "sit around the house, get high and watch the tube", "jungle love in the surf in the pouring rain, every thing's better when wet", "midnight toker", and the ever popular "really love your peaches want to shake your tree".
[Funny side note on that last one: Em thought it was "really love your beaches...". It took me a few minutes to explain the logic of the full lyric to her and convince her that yes, Steve Miller is a little dirty.]
While I didn't mind the "kid rock" I am happy that MLTU is starting to get into adult music, because she will have some of these inluences for the rest of her lie. So far her latest obcession seems to be issolated to 70s folk-ish rock (she rejected U2 today).
So I am just waiting for the day she asks me to play Framton Comes Alive! or screams "Free Bird" while I am driving.
Full disclosure: MLTU's other latest musical obcession is Regina Spektor, so go figure.
An NRCC campaign ad for the NY-20th Congressional race (via Capitol Confidential):
Personally I have always been disturbed by the finality of the death penalty. For example, we will never know what motivated Timothy McVeigh because he can never tell us. Where others involved in his horrendous crime? Would he ever denounced his crimes and given us more details on why he planted that bomb? Is it possible that the events of September 11, 2001 (exactly three months after he was put to death) would have changed his perspective? We will never know because he is dead.
But lets put all that aside. Lets assume that the system works and that some crimes are so terrible that the death penalty is warranted. Lets just look at this add for what it is: hackneyed political fear mongering. Haven't we moved beyond this? Hasn't our discourse evolved just a bit in the last eight years? Apparently not. These are the same despicable tactics that the G.O.P. used in 2002 to defeat an honorable man like Max Cleland.
Now, Scott Murphy is no Max Cleland, but he is a decent man and has a point. He made it badly, and he was called out on it by a political pinhead who went right to the terrorist card, but he has a point. It is a complex issue and one that I personally wish we would stop taking so lightly (especially since we stand alone in the developed world on this one).
I feel bad for Jim Tedisco. He is a respectable politician, but he has allowed his campaign to be taken over by the worst elements of the G.O.P. No wonder the latest poll (PDF) shows that people perceive his campaign as too negative.
In other "how screwed up is New York State" news: the Governor finally spoke and acted like a bit of a jerk when asked why he's gone back to "Three Men in a Room" (who still don't have a budget).
So we have a totally f-ed up Congressional race, a Governor who can't govern and the budget will likely be printed at midnight on Sunday to be put to a vote on Tuesday (without anyone having read it).
Vermont is looking good right now. Hell, Massachusetts is looking good right now.
Televisionary posted a in-depth interview with Sci-Fi President Dave Howe to discuss the network's plan to change its name to Syfy this summer.
You all know that I think this is a boneheaded move (and I am not alone in this opinion). I do respect Mr. Howe for facing the criticism head on and going to talk to the press (including a well-known TV blogger).
But, I have to say, that I am not impressed with the case Mr. Howe tries to make, which seems to boil down to a few key points:
- Re-branding is hard
- No one is ever totally happy when a name changes
- Syfy was the least bad option they cam up with
- Re-branding is hard
- New names are limited by the availability of URLs so you often have to invent a new word
- Syfy tested better than the other finalists
- Did I mention that re-branding is hard...and subjective?
- The channel is not abandoning it core base
"I think the honest answer to that actually is that we didn’t come up with a name that we liked any better than what we’ve gone with which was Syfy,"
Right, so Syfy was the "least bad" option. But then you have to ask the question, why make this change in the first place? Howe give some very thought out answers to this question which go back to the network's sense that they need to expand thier base and expand their image. And he really trys to sell this notion in the interview.
Here's what I bet went down: someone at Sci-Fi (or NBCU) decided they HAD to change the name (lord knows why). So they went off, hired Landor and paid them seven figures (no joke). Then at the end of this long, "subjective" process (and it is), they realized that no "normal" words (like the other finalist, "Beyond") would clear trademark or maybe they tested poorly. But they had to do SOMETHING, they just paid one of the top brand identity firms in the U.S. a ton of cash to come up with a new name.
So they picked the "least bad" option, bit their lip, came up with a good sales pitch and went for it. On various scales, this happens ALL THE TIME in my buisness. Is it dumb? Yes. Will it continue? Yes. Why? Because you can't just turn around and say "whoops, we should not have spent all that money".
So today's lession: if you are going to re-brand, make damn sure you know why you're doing it and be prepared for the worst.
I really just have a brief comment on the G.O.P. "budget" (PDF) that was unveiled yesterday. For the full story you can check out coverage on The Hotline (every link you could ever want).
The bottom line: it's not a budget, its an 18 page document that serves up a sound bite, "the President's plan spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much." As sound bites go its not that bad (beats "drill baby drill"), but I think that a budget is suppose to have some, what are they called, ummmm...oh right, numbers.
But an actual plan does not seem to be that important. According to John Boehner "It's just a bunch of numbers." YES, that's the whole POINT!
Why go through all of this just for a sound bite? Well apparently there was disagreement about rolling out this "blueprint" yesterday. But I think they rushed because they see the clock running out on this discussion. The G.O.P. was planning on Democratic infighting to buy them another week to get their numbers together.
Oh boy. The G.O.P. is in real trouble if they can't even pull together a cohesive budget plan.
In local news, Democrat Scott Murphy leads Republican Jim Tedisco by 4 points in the final poll before Tuesday's election. This is the G.O.P.'s race to lose and they are doing a really good job of screwing it up. Look for all hell to break loose if Murphy is elected.
Well, at least they'll have a sound bite.
Legislative Leaders Say Hands Tied Over Paterson's Job Reduction Order
How bad is it to be Governor Paterson? Let's recap his week shall we:Legislative leaders met with Governor Paterson in private closed door meetings on the lay offs and other state budget issues. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who earlier issued a statement saying the job reductions were "unfortunate", said there wasn't much, though, that the legislature could do about it. He said it was all up to the governor.
"This is the governor's announcement. He is the manager of the state workforce," Silver said. "So there's nothing that we can do in that regard."
- His poll numbers are in the basement (or "under water")
- He can't get a budget together, even with the Three Men in a Room
- The budget deficit got larger
- He plans to lay off close to 9,000 state workers (almost 5% of the work force)
- Upstate hates him because the job cuts could kill our economy
- The city hates him over the MTA fare hike (and service cuts)
With all of this going on, what is our courageous governor doing or saying? NOTHING!! He has made no public statements since announcing the layoffs in a memo (classy).
Has someone told him that being governor is actually a real job where you have to actually, I don't know, show some leadership, accountability and build confidence among the people that you represent?
I know he didn't want this job, he wanted another job. But if you take the number two spot you have to be prepared to step up when your boss decides to do something stupid like sleep with a prostitute.
Come on Paterson, we can't do this for another year, the state may not survive.
The only positive thing to come out of Albany this week: there appears to be a deal on reforming the Rockefeller drug laws. Great so now the GOP can claim that the Democrats can't manage the budget AND are soft on crime. 2010 is going to be a fun election.
See also: my guest post on A Mistake.
Online Age Quiz Is a Window for Drug Makers
RealAge’s privacy policy does not specifically address the firm’s relationship with drug companies, but does state, in part, “we will share your personal data with third parties to fulfill the services that you have asked us to provide to you,” and it adds test results to its database only when respondents become RealAge members. Some critics, however, charge that consumers do not have enough information when they join.
Well, well, well, it seems the evil world of marketing has struck again. Apparently that fun online health quiz founded by Dr. Oz has become something of a data collection tool for the pharmaceutical industry. And we know how Americans LOVE to have their privacy invaded, especially by drug makers, so I am sure this will be much ado about nothing.
I admit that I'm a little mad at myself for not realizing this potential connection before. I guess I'm not that cynical. This is just one more reason to support my personal policy of marketing "anything but pharma". Of course, policies change when you have a wife and two kids.
And while I am not shocked by this revelation, it is likely to piss off more than a few people. RealAge is suppose to be one of those "good websites" that help us. Turns out its really just a way to sell us drugs that we may or may not need. Some things should not be marketed directly to the consumers.
Anyone want to take bets on how long before there's a special Oprah on this topic? My money is on Monday, any other takers?
I want to rant about this (personally I'd work 14 hour days and not see my family for a $742,006.40 bonus) and I want to rant about how my damn DVD burner is not working and how much I hate Dell and Microsoft.
I also want to rant about Twitter and how much I am hating on it right now.
But I can't, because I am thinking about my recent loss and about my job and I am totally freaked out. And I am not good when I get freaked out. I tend to demotivate and freeze up out of fear, which is what I am doing these days.
F**k.
