Remember, remember,
The fifth of November,
Gunpowder treason and plot.
I know of no reason
The gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
Honestly, this has to be one of the worst nursery rhymes in recorded history. To start with the meter is off. Every line has 6 syllables, except for the third, which has 7. I mean, it's not a huge deal, and you won't notice unless you count. But seriously.
But more to the point, what kind of an argument for remembrance is that? "I can't think of a reason not to, therefore we must remember." In fact it's not even saying, "there's no reason not to remember". The poem's author is actually saying, "I can't think of a reason to actively attempt to forget the gunpowder treason, therefore we must remember it." That's not a good argument.
I could rewrite the poem to go
Remember, remember
The fifth of November
Gunpowder treason and plot.
There's really no reason
To think of the treason.
But what the hell, why not?
and it would be a stronger argument than the poem in it's original form (and also follow the same meter and rhyme scheme).
This silly semantic point aside, it's also just completely content free. It basically just name drops the Gunpowder Treason in the hopes that the audience will already be familiar with it. If your audience is already familiar enough with the event that simply naming it will remind them of it, and it's significance, then they probably don't need a poem reminding them of it. They already remember it.
This has been a pretty pointless post. But really that poem just annoys me.
And in a few days I'll be hearing it everywhere.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
Manufactured Demand
I went to shave yesterday, only to discover I was out of shaving cream. Well, I figured, I can either find something else that will work or wait till I buy more shaving cream. Being a lazy bum I hadn't shaved in some time, and it was getting itchy, so I figured, shaving now would be best. I remembered hearing someone say that ordinary soap worked better than shaving cream, so I took the bar of soap, worked up a lather and used that. I wouldn't say it was a better shave than with shaving cream, but it was certainly no worse. About the same, overall. But even this was surprising. If soap works as well, why do I waste money buying shaving cream? What is the point of it? More importantly how many other useless toiletries do I waste money on? What else can be replaced by a simple bar of soap? What about toothpaste? Only one way to find out.
Blearh. OK not toothpaste.
All joking aside though, toothpaste really is just soap, abrasives and mint flavouring. It's probably all the same. I had an uncle who brushed his teeth with baking soda. I'm not saying he used Arm & Hammer brand toothpaste. No, he just took a clump of baking soda, placed it on his toothbrush and brushed his teeth with it. He was a highly eccentric man, so perhaps this might not be the best idea. Then again there didn't seem to be anything horribly wrong with his teeth either, so perhaps he was on to something after all.
I suppose the best example of this phenomenon I'm talking about is with Listerine. They developed this antiseptic product and then started looking for uses for it. Eventually someone came up with the idea that people could rinse their mouths with it, and mouthwash was born. Listerine began a marketing blitz which told people about the evils of halitosis, bad breath, which before that, wasn't really something people thought about. This fact is something I learned from this blog's namesake, the show QI, so I won't go on for too long about this. But what's remarkable about this is that the Listerine ad campaign didn't just make people self conscious about their own breath, it led people to begin worrying about each others breath as well. People began expecting others to have nice smelling breath, in short Listerine was able to create a new social norm, in order to sell a product which no one even knew they needed before. I'm not trying to pick specificially on personal care items, it's just the most obvious example of this phenomenon. I'm not even trying to bash corporations with this post either. I'm more just fascinated with the idea that advertising campaigns can completely invent social norms that otherwise wouldn't exist. So think about it. Next time you see a commercial, ask yourself, are they selling a product to solve a problem, or are they selling a problem I didn't know I needed a solution to?
Blearh. OK not toothpaste.
All joking aside though, toothpaste really is just soap, abrasives and mint flavouring. It's probably all the same. I had an uncle who brushed his teeth with baking soda. I'm not saying he used Arm & Hammer brand toothpaste. No, he just took a clump of baking soda, placed it on his toothbrush and brushed his teeth with it. He was a highly eccentric man, so perhaps this might not be the best idea. Then again there didn't seem to be anything horribly wrong with his teeth either, so perhaps he was on to something after all.
I suppose the best example of this phenomenon I'm talking about is with Listerine. They developed this antiseptic product and then started looking for uses for it. Eventually someone came up with the idea that people could rinse their mouths with it, and mouthwash was born. Listerine began a marketing blitz which told people about the evils of halitosis, bad breath, which before that, wasn't really something people thought about. This fact is something I learned from this blog's namesake, the show QI, so I won't go on for too long about this. But what's remarkable about this is that the Listerine ad campaign didn't just make people self conscious about their own breath, it led people to begin worrying about each others breath as well. People began expecting others to have nice smelling breath, in short Listerine was able to create a new social norm, in order to sell a product which no one even knew they needed before. I'm not trying to pick specificially on personal care items, it's just the most obvious example of this phenomenon. I'm not even trying to bash corporations with this post either. I'm more just fascinated with the idea that advertising campaigns can completely invent social norms that otherwise wouldn't exist. So think about it. Next time you see a commercial, ask yourself, are they selling a product to solve a problem, or are they selling a problem I didn't know I needed a solution to?
Sunday, June 19, 2011
British vs. American Television
So inspiration struck quicker than I expected it to. I certainly wasn't expecting to post again this quickly, but then yesterday's introductory post was so completely content free that I suppose it's only natural that I would probably still want to express a real idea.
The question I've been pondering came to me after I wrote the section of yesterday's post where I discussed naming this blog. As I said there the name was inspired the British Television show QI: Quite Interesting. This led me to wonder, why is British television seems better than North American television. The answer that suggested itself to me on reflection is that it probably isn't. Never having lived in Britain, I can't exactly say that on average British television is better. A few examples do manage to hop the Atlantic and become fairly well known here in North America but obviously only really good shows actually manage this. I bet there's tons of absolute crap on British television, and there are quite a few excellent shows here in North America too. To be honest I'm not exactly the best person to be evaluating it, I don't watch much TV. This isn't some pretentious hipster thing, like I think television is beneath me. It's just that I simply can't afford to pay for cable. The only channels I get are those that can be picked up with the bunny ears antennae, namely the CBC and a few local French stations. Nevertheless there does seem to be something of a trend. There have been a number of BBC shows that seem frankly too cerebral to ever really get picked up by an American network. There probably is a lot of confirmation bias here. I'm exaggerating examples that prove my point, while ignoring the American shows that counter it, but I think there might be something else at play too. The key though, is that it's not British television that's better, the shows I'm thinking of are all BBC shows. I think the problem is, American television companies are unwilling to take risks on shows that don't fit a formula that is proven to work. Part of the reason for this is that television seasons on the BBC are much shorter, and so it's less of an investment sunk if the show flops. But it's also that the BBC, being publicly funded, isn't relying entirely on ad revenues, which require practically every show to be an instant hit. They can wait it out while a show finds its stride, and the network execs don't become super nervous at every slight dip and start interfering with the creative process of the show. Incidentally, I suspect this is also why reality television has become so huge. You don't have to hire writers (yeah right, snorts the cynical part of my brain), you don't have to pay for different sets, location shooting, special effects, artistic directors, acting coaches and so on, and you can pay reality stars way less than you need to spend on real, honest to goodness, actors. With the market so saturated with channels and shows to watch, and the number growing every day, any individual show is bound to get fewer and fewer regular viewers, and thus return less money to the network. A reality show with it's relatively small overhead, is a much better investment.
I suppose a counter argument is that the CBC, in Canada, is publicly funded and isn't always full of brilliant shows, but the thing is, the BBC is the dominant force in British television. It's the largest network and can afford good production values for it's shows. Also the CBC does still follow this trend, only instead of investing heavily in more cerebral shows, the CBC has a mandate to invest in Canadian programming in a market dominated by American shows. The UK television market isn't dominated by shows from other countries, all the television is British anyway, it's just a question of which network can do it best. Either way this is beside the point. My argument is not that public funding is necessarily better than private funding. I'm simply pointing out flaws in the "advertising revenue dependent on ratings" business model used by most major American networks. By general consensus, (though of course your mileage may vary) the best American television is on HBO, a channel which is commercial free and instead is based on a paid subscription business model. Like the publicly funded television the paid subscription business model appears to allow for more flexibility in show formats and more risk taking; subscribers won't cancel a service that normally does a very good job, just because of a dud here and there. The thing about HBO is that it's really expensive. Everyone with a television in the UK can watch BBC One and BBC Two. Which might be something of an advantage that public television has I suppose.
I don't think I'm saying anything new. This has all been said before, and is frequently said about movie studios, which sadly, experience this same problem everywhere. I suppose I'm just ranting about something that has been bugging me. But hey, if for whatever reason, you've read this, and then sometime later you're silly enough to get into a debate with a libertarian, you have an example a situation where the public sphere allows for innovation, and provides better service more effectively and to a greater number of customers, while the free market actually stifles innovation (eat your heart out Ayn Rand). So there's that.
Anyway, hope this was interesting.
- Michael
The question I've been pondering came to me after I wrote the section of yesterday's post where I discussed naming this blog. As I said there the name was inspired the British Television show QI: Quite Interesting. This led me to wonder, why is British television seems better than North American television. The answer that suggested itself to me on reflection is that it probably isn't. Never having lived in Britain, I can't exactly say that on average British television is better. A few examples do manage to hop the Atlantic and become fairly well known here in North America but obviously only really good shows actually manage this. I bet there's tons of absolute crap on British television, and there are quite a few excellent shows here in North America too. To be honest I'm not exactly the best person to be evaluating it, I don't watch much TV. This isn't some pretentious hipster thing, like I think television is beneath me. It's just that I simply can't afford to pay for cable. The only channels I get are those that can be picked up with the bunny ears antennae, namely the CBC and a few local French stations. Nevertheless there does seem to be something of a trend. There have been a number of BBC shows that seem frankly too cerebral to ever really get picked up by an American network. There probably is a lot of confirmation bias here. I'm exaggerating examples that prove my point, while ignoring the American shows that counter it, but I think there might be something else at play too. The key though, is that it's not British television that's better, the shows I'm thinking of are all BBC shows. I think the problem is, American television companies are unwilling to take risks on shows that don't fit a formula that is proven to work. Part of the reason for this is that television seasons on the BBC are much shorter, and so it's less of an investment sunk if the show flops. But it's also that the BBC, being publicly funded, isn't relying entirely on ad revenues, which require practically every show to be an instant hit. They can wait it out while a show finds its stride, and the network execs don't become super nervous at every slight dip and start interfering with the creative process of the show. Incidentally, I suspect this is also why reality television has become so huge. You don't have to hire writers (yeah right, snorts the cynical part of my brain), you don't have to pay for different sets, location shooting, special effects, artistic directors, acting coaches and so on, and you can pay reality stars way less than you need to spend on real, honest to goodness, actors. With the market so saturated with channels and shows to watch, and the number growing every day, any individual show is bound to get fewer and fewer regular viewers, and thus return less money to the network. A reality show with it's relatively small overhead, is a much better investment.
I suppose a counter argument is that the CBC, in Canada, is publicly funded and isn't always full of brilliant shows, but the thing is, the BBC is the dominant force in British television. It's the largest network and can afford good production values for it's shows. Also the CBC does still follow this trend, only instead of investing heavily in more cerebral shows, the CBC has a mandate to invest in Canadian programming in a market dominated by American shows. The UK television market isn't dominated by shows from other countries, all the television is British anyway, it's just a question of which network can do it best. Either way this is beside the point. My argument is not that public funding is necessarily better than private funding. I'm simply pointing out flaws in the "advertising revenue dependent on ratings" business model used by most major American networks. By general consensus, (though of course your mileage may vary) the best American television is on HBO, a channel which is commercial free and instead is based on a paid subscription business model. Like the publicly funded television the paid subscription business model appears to allow for more flexibility in show formats and more risk taking; subscribers won't cancel a service that normally does a very good job, just because of a dud here and there. The thing about HBO is that it's really expensive. Everyone with a television in the UK can watch BBC One and BBC Two. Which might be something of an advantage that public television has I suppose.
I don't think I'm saying anything new. This has all been said before, and is frequently said about movie studios, which sadly, experience this same problem everywhere. I suppose I'm just ranting about something that has been bugging me. But hey, if for whatever reason, you've read this, and then sometime later you're silly enough to get into a debate with a libertarian, you have an example a situation where the public sphere allows for innovation, and provides better service more effectively and to a greater number of customers, while the free market actually stifles innovation (eat your heart out Ayn Rand). So there's that.
Anyway, hope this was interesting.
- Michael
About This Blog
I have a lot going on in my head. A lot.
Not all of it is interesting. Not all of it has a point.
But it's all there. This is a space for me to get it out of my head, and in some recorded medium. This space will probably often be full of inane ramblings that seem to go nowhere and long asides that are only tangentially related to the supposed topic of any one post. I don't even expect anyone to really read it. Which is why I named this blog "Quite Unnecessary".
That was actually not the first name that I'd thought of. I had been thinking of calling it "The Random Musings of a Bored Guy". Then I Googled that, and found that although that exact title hadn't been taken, several, more specific variants of it did already exist, including Random Musings of a Bored Corporate Drone, Bassist and puzzlingly Spectator. The first two of those made perfect sense. Being a corporate drone isn't really a choice, it's simply a way to survive, and no one expects you to be anything but bored in a job like that. And a bassist may be bored for reasons other than because they're a bassist, or perhaps because as a bassist they can't find much work. But for whatever reason the title implies that the person in question is posting a blog about playing the bass, or bassisting, as I doubt it is more commonly known, to alleviate boredom. But "bored spectator" implies that he's someone who watches sports, but is completely unstimulated by the experience, which of course raises the question, if he's so bored watching sports, why does he keep watching them? However I have often suspected that many sports fans actually feel the same way. Anyway, after ruling out that title, I considered "Inane Ramblings" but that name was taken too. It turns out I'm not the only person who enjoys being ironically self deprecating. Who knew? Anyway, I eventually settled on this title "Quite Unnecessary" because it captures the spirit of this blog perfectly, and also because it is a reference to QI. This title was also taken, but the people who used it never actually posted a single thing. So now I'm scooping them.
I'll probably try to make regular posts, one or two a week perhaps. And I'll probably continue this blog for as long as I continue it. Then once I stop continuing it, I'll stop. Pretty self explanatory. One might even say tautological (if one were to say so they'd be correct). Anyway, I guess that's all for this introductory post.
I'll have more for next time. Or perhaps I won't, I haven't decided yet. Either way, until then.
- Michael
Not all of it is interesting. Not all of it has a point.
But it's all there. This is a space for me to get it out of my head, and in some recorded medium. This space will probably often be full of inane ramblings that seem to go nowhere and long asides that are only tangentially related to the supposed topic of any one post. I don't even expect anyone to really read it. Which is why I named this blog "Quite Unnecessary".
That was actually not the first name that I'd thought of. I had been thinking of calling it "The Random Musings of a Bored Guy". Then I Googled that, and found that although that exact title hadn't been taken, several, more specific variants of it did already exist, including Random Musings of a Bored Corporate Drone, Bassist and puzzlingly Spectator. The first two of those made perfect sense. Being a corporate drone isn't really a choice, it's simply a way to survive, and no one expects you to be anything but bored in a job like that. And a bassist may be bored for reasons other than because they're a bassist, or perhaps because as a bassist they can't find much work. But for whatever reason the title implies that the person in question is posting a blog about playing the bass, or bassisting, as I doubt it is more commonly known, to alleviate boredom. But "bored spectator" implies that he's someone who watches sports, but is completely unstimulated by the experience, which of course raises the question, if he's so bored watching sports, why does he keep watching them? However I have often suspected that many sports fans actually feel the same way. Anyway, after ruling out that title, I considered "Inane Ramblings" but that name was taken too. It turns out I'm not the only person who enjoys being ironically self deprecating. Who knew? Anyway, I eventually settled on this title "Quite Unnecessary" because it captures the spirit of this blog perfectly, and also because it is a reference to QI. This title was also taken, but the people who used it never actually posted a single thing. So now I'm scooping them.
I'll probably try to make regular posts, one or two a week perhaps. And I'll probably continue this blog for as long as I continue it. Then once I stop continuing it, I'll stop. Pretty self explanatory. One might even say tautological (if one were to say so they'd be correct). Anyway, I guess that's all for this introductory post.
I'll have more for next time. Or perhaps I won't, I haven't decided yet. Either way, until then.
- Michael
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)