31 December 2009

Are we there yet? NYs resolutions

[nb I've stolen the title of this from another blog who in turn stole it from movies who stole it from kids - no specific child has been identified as the originator of the phrase but should it be trademarked  or copyrighted or have any other form of incredibly important legal protection I will unashamedly apologise, and grovel in a cowering and subservient manner appropriate for someone with no dignity or rights.  Please don't sue me]

I don't like New Years Resolutions. My behaviour suggests I must be lying as I've only ever achieved one, despite having made many.  One of the most spectacular attempts was an own-goal - not to make any New Year resolutions. 

The single success was to finish a particular play I was writing. It was a bloody awful play so I'm not sure what was achieved there. The idea was to review NYRs (see how quickly acronyms get formed? 4 lines in no less) them on my birthday in August (24th and yes I accept vouchers), which has only happened once.

The aim of them seems to be to make things better, and starts from the premise something is wrong.  While aware that the idea that nothing is wrong right now is a little ludicrous (elephants in living room analogies seem very popular right now) mostly things in my life are wrong, or less than ideal, for a reason.  So these resolutions are more of a 'are we there yet'.  Wherever there is. 

This year I will make a resolution, it will be more of a statement.  It's actually a new year's truce - I'm not giving myself a hard time.  I must be there by now, or somewhere.  So I'm here. Sod the rest of it. I must be glorious, experienced or famous enough already.

I am happy though to suggest NYRs [TM©] to people I know eg

  • I must ring Sam more
  • Sam's birthday is 24 August - send him a voucher
  • I must ring Sam a lot less

I can tailor them, just ask.  Or if you want, you can 'be there' too.

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

29 December 2009

SamNZed's 2010 almanac - unlikely predictions you saw here first

Almanac's were very popular over 100 years ago and contained useful and exciting predictions about the coming year.

Based on inate psychic powers I have here are some predictions you can set your TIVO to in 2010

 

1    The new Dan Brown novel (working title - The Cowell Myth) will hinge on important arcane knowledge discovered by playing back Susan Boyle's music.

2    'Five fruit and veges a day' and any product with the word 'Lite' in the name will be proved to be responsible for the obesity epidemic.  Scientists will apologise and advocate returning to the thinning diet of overcooked meat, three veg (one of which must be peas), and potatoes for evening meals, and only white bread as the way of reversing the problem.  This will gain scientific support when Oprah adopts it in a one-off special TV show.

3    Gordon Brown will finally get angry at Tony Blair as he works through stage 3 of his grief at being given the British PMship to late.  During his public meltdown he'll make a Freudian slip referring to Blair as his jedi father.

4    2010 will be the first year in over a decade where Demi Moore will not have new photos of her breasts published.

5    Ronald Reagan will take another step towards formal sainthood when the US Congress designates his tomb a national monument and pilgimages encouraged.  This will clear the way to Reagan's visage appearing on Mount Rushmore. The first Reaganite bishops and priests will be annointed.

6   A video of Bill English practising being sworn in as Prime Minister will be found in a VHS being sold as surplus by the NZ Govt.

7   A new reality show where people have to live in a septic tank will be canned due to too many applicants and problems finding a place for the confessions camera.

8    TVNZ will organise a political party leaders' debate and simply forget to invite Phil Goff. 

9    The first Super Mayor of Auckland will be made an ex-officio member of the NZ Cabinet, this will be reversed when Mark Ellis wins in a write-on ballot campaign.

10   Graham Henry's long rumoured compromising pornographic video and photographic footage of the NZ Rugby Union Board engaged in an orgy will be revealed.  Dan Brown will start writing a book on 'the conspiracy of high pitched whimpering'.

11    Tom Cruise will turn out to have green scaly skin.

12    Al Queda will turn out to be working for the CIA and the UN and committed to dominating the USA and overthrowing the Constitution and most importantly taking away the right of ordinary Americans to own missile launchers. Conspiracy nutbars across the US will get to celebrate saying 'nyah nyah na nyah na'.  After several months of 'I told you so' crowing the conspiracists will develop new theories that this discovery was all fabricated by liberal media and that Al Queda, the UN and CIA really aren't co-ordinated but just a huge muddle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

26 December 2009

Two really popular movies that need to be binned

An Emperor's new clothes moment. 

While many movies are just awful some well made films have a dimension where somehow they dress up pyschosis into family movies and somehow they do well. 
There are two older popular films which I think are disturbing and everytime they appear on TV I wonder why they continue to be shown. "They're naked I tell you!  Naked! - NO clothes, can't you see!"

1 Mrs Doubtfire
Man unable to see his kids except under supervision imitates an elderly Scottish woman and takes on housekeeping for his exwife and them.
Given there is no way it could be pulled off in any situation except where the mother was absent, hardly meeting the housekeeper, I think there is possibly a sinister subtext, probably unintended, about denial. This is actually about a sinister Trojan Horse home invasion.

Whatever the end should have been more like the 70's sicko classic Bad Ronald or some off-edge Jodie Foster film. Big reveal kids and mum run for lives into the night and Mrs Doubtfire gets run through with a pitchfork held up by Sally Field to protect herself.... closing scene she holds the kids tight sobbing as the police arrive and the dead but grimacing Mrs Doubtfire stares at them and bleeds down the pitchfork handle.

2 Sleepless in Seattle
This woman pursues a man she has never met who is on the other side of  the US using his young son on the basis she 'knows' they should be together. 

Where I come from we call that stalking and would describe her as delusional.  The end of the movie should be Meg Ryan dragged off by the FBI heavily sedated and screaming how they will always be together while Tom Hanks takes his forever traumatised son away to live in Hawaii.

Posted via email from SamNZed's posterous

How do you find an elf? - By Juliet Lapidos - Slate Magazine

According to a poll conducted in 2007, 54 percent of Icelanders don't deny the existence of elves and 8 percent believe in them outright, although only 3 percent claim to have encountered one personally. The ability to see the huldufólk, or hidden folk, can't be learned; you're just born with it.

I don't need to comment on this.

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

19 December 2009

Healthy Difference for Men: Coffee may help prevent Prostate Cancer - todaysthv.com | KTHV | Little Rock, AR

A study of nearly 50,000 men over 20 years shows that those who drank coffee had a 60 percent lower risk of aggressive prostate cancer.

The study shows that there was a reduction in the high grade cancers. Most men do not have the aggressive form of cancer.

The data indicates drinking coffee might even lower the risk of other types of prostate cancer. Coffee affects insulin and glucose metabolism, as well as sex hormone levels. All of them play a role in prostate cancer.

Doctors say the study suggests that caffeine is not the ideological factor for the reduction of high grade cancer. It could be hormonal or antioxidants.

The magic in the mug is not the caffeine; in fact, the research shows men benefitted even when they were drinking decaf.

Researchers emphasize it's still too early to say coffee will protect men against prostate cancer, but all indications are, it won't harm them.

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

17 December 2009

Thank You/en - Wikimedia Foundation

From the Wikimedia Foundation

Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia

Forever

Thank you. Imagine if every person on earth could share in the free and total access to all human knowledge. Your donation helps get us closer.

— Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia

See your live comment now. Then, read about why other donors around the world support Wikipedia, or find out if your company has a corporate matching gift program.

Show your support for Wikimedia

Download these buttons and banners for your website, blog or social networking page.


See more

Share this:  Bookmark with Facebook

Share on Digg.com

Share on delicious

Share on reddit.com

Share on stumbleupon.com

Share on Technorati

Share on twitter.com

Share on Identi.ca

Share on Hyves

  

Please tell us your Wikipedia story

Wikipedia is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. Questions or comments? Contact the Wikimedia Foundation: donate@wikimedia.org

Afrikaans · Alemannisch · العربية · Asturianu · Boarisch · Беларуская (тарашкевіца) · Български · বাংলা · ইমার ঠার/বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী · Brezhoneg · Bosanski · Català · Mìng-dĕ̤ng-ngṳ̄ · Česky · Cymraeg · Dansk · Deutsch · Dolnoserbski · Ελληνικά · English · Esperanto · Español · Eesti · Euskara · فارسی · Suomi · Võro · Français · Frysk · Gaeilge · Galego · Gaelg · עברית · हिन्दी · Hrvatski · Hornjoserbsce · Magyar · Interlingua · Bahasa Indonesia · Italiano · 日本語 · Basa Jawa · ქართული · ភាសាខ្មែរ · 한국어 · Ripoarisch · Latina · Lëtzebuergesch · Lumbaart · ລາວ · Lietuvių · Македонски · മലയാളം · मराठी · Bahasa Melayu · Malti · ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ · Nedersaksisch · Nederlands · ‪Norsk (nynorsk)‬ · Occitan · Polski · Piemontèis · Português · Runa Simi · Română · Русский · Sicilianu · Srpskohrvatski / Српскохрватски · Slovenčina · Slovenščina · Српски / Srpski · Seeltersk · Basa Sunda · Svenska · ไทย · Tagalog · Türkçe · Українська · اردو · O'zbek · Vèneto · Tiếng Việt · Walon · ייִדיש · 粵語 · ‪中文(简体)‬ · ‪中文(繁體)‬

Often I use Wikipedia instead of Google.

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

Elmwood Players

Book Now!


Christmas pseudo-Pantomime


Celebrate Christmas by getting involved in a Christmas mystery for kids. The warmest comedy this year from the North Pole.

 

'Who Stole Father Christmas?'

Written & directed by

Sam Fisher

 


 

Who Stole Father Xmas

 

Synopsis


When Father Christmas vanishes along with the contents of the safe Senior Detective Constable Sergeant Inspector Kris Kringle of the North Pole Special Branch Police Constabulary is on the scene to solve the mystery.

 

By deputising the audience and singing lots of songs Kris Kringle sorts through the facts. Was it Wonky or Flippin Elf? Or Little, Littler or Oddly Elf? How about Mrs Christmas? Or the representative of the Asia Toy Company? Someone knows more than they're letting on as the blizzard has stopped any escape for the villain.

Cast:

 

Father Christmas/Oddly Elf

Tom Vavasour

Wonky Elf

Erin Williams

Flippin Elf

Sophie Rea

Mary Christmas

Holly Loughton

Busy Lee

Cushla Parker

Detective Kris Kringle

Braydon Priest

Little and Littler Elves

Emily Harrison, Georgia Mangelsdorf

Season dates: 17, 18, 19, 20 December


 

Want to find out about Auditions

Elmwood Players has an email list for notifying all interested actors about auditions. It is not limited to stage roles we sometimes get requests from film-makers, independent producers and tv/film students who all need actors for their projects.

 

Register on the Elmwood Audition list by emailing Kris: prez@elmwood-players.org.nz

 

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

Controversial church billboard - national | Stuff.co.nz

hmmmm

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

16 December 2009

Anne Applebaum - Anne Applebaum on devaluing humanity and hope in Copenhagen

Watching the news from Copenhagen last weekend, it wasn't hard to understand where he got that idea. Among the tens of thousands demonstrating outside the climate change summit, some were carrying giant clocks set at 10 minutes to midnight, indicating the imminent end of the world. Elsewhere, others staged a "resuscitation" of planet Earth, symbolically represented by a large collapsing balloon. Near the conference center, an installation of skeletons standing knee-deep in water made a similar point, as did numerous melting ice sculptures and a melodramatic "die-in" staged by protesters wearing white, ghost-like jumpsuits.

Danish police arrested about a thousand people on Saturday for smashing windows and burning cars, and on Sunday arrested 200 more (they were carrying gas masks and seem to have been planning to shut down the city harbor). Nevertheless, in the long run it is those peaceful demonstrators, the ones who say the end is nigh, who have the capacity to do the most psychological damage.

I'll pause here to point out that I enthusiastically support renewable energy, believe strongly in the imposition of a carbon tax and am furthermore convinced that a worldwide shift away from fossil fuels would have hugely positive geopolitical consequences, even leaving aside the environmental benefits. It's true that I'm not crazy about the Kyoto climate negotiation process, of which the Copenhagen summit is the latest stage. But I'm even more disturbed by the apocalyptic and the anti-human prejudices of the climate change movement, some of which do indeed filter down to children as young as 9.

Over the years there have been many radical statements of this latter creed. In the infamous words of a National Park Service ecologist, "We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." A former leader of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals once declared that "humans have grown like a cancer; we're the biggest blight on the face of the earth." But it is a mistake to think that this is the language of only a crazy fringe.

Look, for example, at the Optimum Population Trust, a mainstream organization whose patrons include the naturalist David Attenborough, the scientist Jane Goodall and professors at Cambridge and Stanford -- and that campaigns against, well, human beings. Calling for "fewer emitters, lower emissions," the group offers members the chance to offset the pollution that they generate, merely by existing, through the purchase of family-planning devices in poor countries. Click on its PopOffsets calculator to see what I mean: It reckons that every $7 spent on family planning generates one ton fewer carbon emissions. Since the average American generates 20.6 tons of carbon annually, it will cost $144.20 -- $576.80 for a family of four -- to buy enough condoms to prevent the births of, say, 0.4 Kenyans.

The assumption behind this calculation is profoundly negative: that human beings are nothing more than machines for the production of carbon dioxide. And if we take that assumption seriously, a whole lot of other things look different, too. Weapons of mass destruction should perhaps be reconsidered, along with the flu virus: By reducing the population, they might also reduce emissions. Perhaps they should be encouraged?

Coupling all that with a firm conviction that the end of the world is nigh, you can see how homework is rendered pointless. As for hopes for the future and faith in humanity -- forget about it. But while we're at it, we might as well forget about reinventing our energy sources, too.

For while it's true that humans are often greedy, stupid and destructive, it's also true that we got to where we are at least partly thanks to human creativity, ingenuity and talent. Electricity is a miracle, an invention that has brought light and life to millions. Modern communication and transportation systems are no less extraordinary, helping to create economic growth in places where poverty and misery were the norm for centuries.

All of them depend on fossil fuels, but they don't have to: A profound change in the nature of human energy consumption is possible -- thanks to the entrepreneurship that created the Internet, the compassion that lies behind the advances in modern medicine and the scientific reasoning that sent men into space. As for nihilism and hatred of humankind, it teaches us nothing, except to give up. And we shouldn't be passing that on to our children either.

applebaumletters@washpost.com

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

14 December 2009

Pedant, purist or protector - reacting to badish use of England writing

When I was young I was advised that everyone is allowed to be a bore about one subject.  So in the same way I take all the advice I'm given I ignored it and I am a bore on at least 15 topics.

Today's one annoys my wife. A lot. 

And in the scheme of things ranks near the bottom of major issues facing humanity.  But this stuff does annoy me. I'm not going to even try and justify it.

 

The packaged loose leaf tea I buy has 'please open the other end' written on it.

The local mall posts a sign that says 'please use side doors due to adverse weather.'

 

I spose at least they're both trying, but do they mean please?  No.  They mean either 'you have to' or 'sorry'. 

The tea one is dumb.  While you can open the thing the wrong way you end up ripping the bag and making a mess - so they're doing this to help you.  What they mean is 'Open the other end' OR 'This end doesn't open'. Why are they saying please?  They're trying to be polite but it's more about helping us so really they need to get some mojo and take credit for an easy opening package.

 

The mall is just people trying to be too clever.  'Adverse' how about 'bad' or 'windy'?  The main issue is there's no choice either unless you want to walk quite a way.

What these turkeys mean is 'We're sorry ( & the fecking doors are badly designed by an architect who's never been here so they point the wrong way and don't work)'  so they should say 'Sorry but you'll have to use the side door because of the weather.'  Although this isn't strictly correct - it's not the weather but the doors and the orientation of the doorway. Please might be - 'please don't scale the roof, just follow the arrow.' 'please don't smash the doors, go round the side'.  Why don't they say sorry? The staff don't feel it's their fault.  Why do they say 'adverse'?  They're trying to sound correct, clever or authoritative.

 

I have better things to do now.  Next post will be on the joys of Christmas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

30 November 2009

Ageing stupidly

It would be nice if I was a totally rationale machine that behaved like neoclassical economists think we should.  I'm not.

Here are the things that I noted at the time and was consciously aware they meant that I was getting older.  While there have been many other markers these are the ones where I thought- 'I'm getting older'.

- wearing short trousers with the pocket at the back, not at the front; 3? under 5 anyway

- getting a watch; 10 years

- sex; 18 years old

- getting into debt; 18 years old

- finally understanding what a draught was (up until then I never understood why adults complained about doors left open in warm rooms); somewhere near 20

- buying emery boards (yep weird); about 30

- my first grey hair; 35

- arranging my father's funeral and having to explain to my aunt that she wasn't making the decisions; 41

- the sudden realisation that I actually know a hell of a lot less than I thought I did about a huge range of things  (people, life, talent, right, money etc...); January 09

 

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

23 November 2009

3 steps backwards

A friend of mine told me he had an example of technology going backwards in our lifetimes. While not wanting to portray the gradiose idea that civilisation is moving backwards I've added two more to the list. 

 

  1. Mike's example was Concorde. When the last Concorde was shelved we moved to slower passenger travel across the Atlantic passing over a faster service
  2. Cellphones in cars.   While not in anyway encouraging use of cellphones while driving the benefit of texting or ringing to say 'I'm running late' while stuck at the lights has been closed to us. On Friday I sat on the great southern carpark, in as rental car, leaving Auckland (long story email me if this un- Sam location interests you) , and while not moving and I stared at my ringing cellphone. The nearby police car was a strong reminder of this new policy, but as we weren't moving I felt more than a little frustrated. Yes I know you can pull over but a) the Great Southern Carpark has a very long no stopping zone b) if you're late pulling over and light stops just seems a bit much. In my case - rental cars are hard to rig a legitmate cell phone holding devices in and the messages were urgent and my inability to respond has caused a bit of trouble.
  3. Mudguards.  I see many cyclists, including school kids, riding around with huge mud trails up their backs. It's no suprise the big thick tyres are made to pump water off the surface and fling it up. So we've abandoned mudguards on bicycles and people are getting their clothes, hair and bags covered in mud so that IF the bike is taken off road into a large ruddy mudpuddle it won't jam the chunky back wheel. So very expense bikes that look like the more expensive BMX cycles built to off-road but only used for nice urban streets.  It's almost like these pristine urban tractors (4 wheel drives) running around our city - ostensibly designed for one use and now instead a status symbol for people with .... (better stop there- some of my best friends have 4wDs)

Any other examples?

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

22 November 2009

Getting married brings £18,000 worth of happiness to men – but only half that to women - Telegraph

By Kate Devlin
Published: 7:00AM GMT 17 Nov 2009

Wedding bells provide only around £9,000 worth of joy to women, a new study suggests.

The differences between the sexes continue even when it comes to divorce.

Men are so devastated by the break up of a marriage that it feels as though they have lost £61,500.

For women, however, the pain is less traumatic – and leaves them feeling as if they had lost only a measly £5,000.

The sums are estimates of the value in cash terms of the happiness that a marriage brings.

They have been calculated by estimating how much money a person would have to receive in a lump sum to bring the same amount of joy.

Paul Frijters, an Australian university professor, has spent the last eight years following the effect of major life events on 10,000 people.

He said: "These are real people to whom unexpected things happen.

"They were not selected because these things would happen and, because of that, we can accurately compare their happiness before and after."

The volunteers were asked to rate how satisfied they were with their lives on a scale of 0 to 10.

The most common number given was eight.

However, the ratings changed after, and sometimes in anticipation of, life-altering events, including sudden changes in income.

These changes allowed Prof Frijters, from the Queensland University of Technology, to assign cash values to the happiness created by events such as marriage, divorce and illness.

He found that expectant parents were happier in the build up to their child’s birth.

However, within months they were slightly less happy than they would have been if they had not had children.

Correspondingly, the birth of a child scores a low cash sum, more than £18,000 for a man and just under £5,000 for a woman.

The findings also show that we feel the loss of a loved one more keenly than finding new love.

Paul Frijters said: "Losing a loved one has a much bigger effect than gaining a loved one.

“There's a real asymmetry between life and death.

"This shouldn't surprise us.

“Human beings seem primed to notice losses more than gains."

The death of a partner or a child creates the feeling of a loss of £73,000 to a woman and more than £350,000 to a man, according to the findings.

Prof Frijters cautioned: "This isn't the value of the life that's lost, that would be much higher, of course.

"This is just the effect on the happiness of one person flowing from a death."

He said he did not know why major life events appeared to have different effects on men than women.

"But it does tend to give me confidence in the calculations,” he said.

"We know for instance that marriage improves the lives of men much more than women."

Some of the other findings appear to fit with stereotypes of the different sexes.

For example, women feel a boost of around £1,500 when they move house, while men feel a loss of around £9,000 during the same move.

Prof Frijters said that his calculations suggest that money has a greater effect on happiness than has previously been thought.

The worth of major life events

Marriage

Man – £17,675.68

Woman – £8,726.25

Birth of child

Man – £18,236.39

Woman – £4,866.77

Divorce

Man – loss of £61,116.46

Woman – loss of £4,977.08

Death of a loved one

Man – loss of £350,830.36

Woman – loss of £73,204.86

Illness

Man – loss of £201,264.68

Woman – loss of £28,124.61

Moving home

Man – loss of 8,947.11

Woman – £1,453.80

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

21 November 2009

Split personality

This is a cry for help.  Yes I do want advice and suggestions. Normally I don't, and I just want to be right.

Okay with that out of the way.

Some years ago I changed from writing novels to plays.  It made sense.  I'm a crap novelist, everyone raved about my dialogue, and I've done a lot of theatre.  So I switched back to plays (I used to write them when I was in my teens). What I did discover though is that people were very keen to pick holes in what I'd written and re-write it for me as we rehearsed. In fact it was very hard work I ended up arguing with actors.

Enter Tim Barcode. An invention. I did spread the rumour that he may be from Melbourne.  From then on, no one even questioned the text, they just got down and worked on the plays. So from 1995 till about 2005 the prolific Barcode produced my best work.  I discovered that I liked people not knowing who he was AND Barcode could say things I couldn't. He wasn't as PC as I am and he was also smarter. He was almost a dangerous intellectual.

Then came the play Real and the support from Playmarket.  Playmarket gave me a lot of help getting Real ready for perfomance, particularly read throughs and then a funded workshop. the support was fantastic.  A condition was that it had to be under my name not Barcode. One reason was I wouldn't be taken seriously.  So Sam Fisher started writing the plays. Now the problem is, or may be, they're not as good.  BUT I have a body of work by Barcode, a series of plays by my given name and I've even got some down as co-authored.

As an interesting aside - 'Sam Fisher' is trademarked based on the game Splinter Cell arising from a Tom Clancy novel.Apparently I'm an ex Navy seal with a colourful past.  Who knew?  Tim Barcode is mine and mine alone and URL I own is www.timbarcode.com.

I'm leaning towards going back to Barcode but the whole personal brand thing has just got very confusing. I could maybe just buckle down and just write and not worry about it. Maybe.  Whatever I need to just make a decision and go with it.

So do I stick with Sam, follow the co-authoring path, or revert to Barcode?

So as I started - HELP (that is the cry) - Thoughts, abuse, suggestions for good psychologists, psychotherapists or pharmaceuticals?

 

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

11 November 2009

Deep dark secrets

I'm sure we all have them. Things we don't tell people or admit. There may be many reasons; we can't reconcile them with our image, we don't think friends will like them or understand, legal reasons maybe, or whatever.  In one organisation I am a member of there is a saying we're as sick as our secrets. the corollary being 'the truth will set us free' (apologies to whoever wrote that bit in the bible but I am sure we're out of copyright now).

I'm off to Hanmer for 3 days and I feel like explaining why.

When I first joined Facebook I did a quiz, 'how geeky are you?' I don't see myself as particularly geeky, I can't programme, I don't like Star Trek or Lord of the Rings and I don't own a blue anorak.  I was stunned to fly through the questions and score a rating of more geeky than any of my friends who had done the quiz and 75% of Facebook users.  This was perhaps the first inkling of the issue. This year, after a series of major changes in my life in 08 I decided I needed to meet more people and get back to doing things I love. 

I immediately rejected salsa dancing (I'm a male and I have a partner), cricket (which takes hours and hours and hours and I'm crap anyway), and getting back into politics (I'd rather have my head superglued to a Holden).

This weekend I am off to a board game weekend.  Most Wednesdays this year I have been playing board games, I love them, have done since I was small. I used to invent them.  And the idea of spending four days playing lots of them really appeals. This isn't monopoly the game of life or Cluedo, but Eurogames; high-end strategy and complicated multi-objective board games.  I'm even a member and patron on Boardgamegeek.com.  I browse catalogues and watch videos on board game reviews.

Why do I love boardgames?  They're social, the people who play them are interesting (and almost all are intelligent), and you have to think.

But the most interesting thing I think is that it addresses one of life's great issues. Life is very complicated, it can be very unfair and often is.  Your best efforts are sometimes not good enough, and other times you have incredible luck. I always wonder sometimes where the rule book is.  With board games the variables are all defined and controlled; how much luck, how much skill are all quantified and controlled. If someone has an unfair run of luck it will be evened out. You can learn and improve.  You can make a hash out of a situation and make bad decisions and at the end start again. 

And people also play games with the same approach to how they live. When you get experienced you can work to adjust your playing style. This isn't just true of games.  I noticed it when I worked in a supermarket when I was studying; the way people approached their work was exactly how they approached everything else in their lives (work, problems, study, relationships...).

I like games them as they can take you to other places and scenarios, there are thousands of modern games, and a huge industry churning out board games on just about anything you can think of.

Board games are metaphors and they are a metaphor in themselves.

Now as with all deep dark secrets some of you will never think well of me again. Some may smirk. Or say what a freak. Some will say - that's interesting. Others might want to give games a try. I'd ask - Is how you react the way you often to react to new things? And that is why board games are really good for learning about yourself.

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

Slate Magazine

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

08 November 2009

Doonesbury@Slate - Daily Dose

Doonesbury on Twitter. here's the whole cartoon. I hope.

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

07 November 2009

Today's Pictures: Berlin, Berlin

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

Doonesbury tweets Slate Magazine

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

the sound of lawnmowers

There are some evocative phrases that put me straight into a place or mood - literary shorthand maybe.  Paul Simon's 'sound of a train in the distance' is one.

Right now I can hear lawnmowers... that is one that when I read I immediately go to a kiwi front lawn on a hot day. But I also can add my cousins house by the pool where there were deck chairs or my father in his terrible brown shorts looking uncomfortable in the sun at Christmas in the late 70s.

Trains in the distance was Paul Simon's way of saying things can get better.  The sound of lawnmowers says to me we're already there if we just stop and realise it.

Posted via email from SamNZed's posterous

06 November 2009

The end of hot showers

One of the more unsettling things I've seen on TV in the last year is people reducing the flow on their showers.

I've chosen flats and houses for years with shower effectiveness as a showstopping criteria. I've seen it as a height of civilisation to have a lovely hot shower where I get very wet. the idea of reducing shower effectiveness feels to me like the march of civilisation into darkness.Now I know if I lived in Australia or one of many other water-poor nations I couldn't have a long shower so if I lived there I'd be a poorer dirtier individual but thankfully I live in New Zild - the '0.65ha low fat instant pudding paradise'

This water and power profligacy has it's roots in my dysfunctional childhood where after my parents broke up I lived in a house with my mother, no hot water but a small cylinder and wetback that, if we had a fire, produced two short showers and the dishes once a day. Such was the dysfunction that if I as a 10 year old didn't clear the grate, find wood and light the fire there was no hot water. Since I didn't enjoy the grate clearing and often couldn find things to burn, I didn't always do it.  So when we visited relatives my 2 siblings and I were stripped, thrown into baths and our clothes washed (or thrown out and replaced as happened occassionally).

When I turn 13 and went to High School I suddenly understood cleanliness so started to ensure there was a fire and hot water and I had a brief shower each morning. Since I was getting myself too school it was also something to encourage me to get me up in the morning in time to forage some lunch and sometimes breakfast and get to school on time. My shower time was the best time of the day. And that feeling has continued to today - showers to me have a deep cleansing and liberating function, one that means I can hold my head up high and go out. You can imagine my classmates were far more friendly when I showered every day compared to once a fortnight (and had clean clothes which is another story).

So recognising my showers are now seen by many as the enemy of the planet I have gone back to one every other day and sometimes one every 3 days but they are hot and long. I do have a problem with this idea of who can prescribe what I can use energy for and what I can't.  If I was choosing I'd close all gyms (make people run around instead and save that power), but many would object to this. I'd also cancel the world cup rugby - that has to be worth a lot of hot showers, and actually all rugby in those big stadiums with lights. let the teams flail around in the dark OR play when it's light. I'd close TV networks during daylight hours, close schools and workplaces on very hot and very cold days. Demand offices use less air conditioning (all it does is make people sick anyway). Ban SUVs for ordinary households. I'd ban a lot of overseas travel. I'd impoverish Paris Hilton - a big waste of energy there I think. But I wouldn't interfere with other peoples' showers.

For my shower I will trade all sorts of other energy and water consumption. I will hand wash rather than dish wash. I will not buy a swimming pool (sorry kids). I will wander around in the dark more. Eat more uncooked food dishes. Not go out as much.  I will wear poly props and leave the heater off. I will trade off a lot of things before my showers.

And if I am ever very rich I will forgo a big car and a private plane.  And I will have a wasteful hot shower every day.

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

Zuckerberg's law

Zuckerberg's law - the tendency over time for successful social media sites to change how they work and make things steadily less useful. (see FB site changes, Twitter Feed changes etc...)

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

27 October 2009

An apology to journalists

Public apologies for all sorts of issues are now commonplace so I am going to make a few of my own, starting with a serious one. I'm not sure about the efficacy of public apologies but I do like the principle behind them having worked in many contexts where admitting fault was strongly resisted.

 

This is an apology to any NZ journalists who, over the years, I have unfairly maligned based on:

  • one or two inaccurate stories;
  • stories in the 80s on the fourth Labour Government;
  • stories I didn't like or agree with;
  • the way some media stories are snapshots and have missed the context;
  • the supposed 'middle ground' that journalists write from. 

In the last 15 years I have been a lot more positive recognising shinking newsrooms, underresourced staff, understaffing, low pay, workload and deadline demands and a few poor journalists have made the profession less effective.

What this apology is about is my experiences of the last few months working on stories in the agricultural science area. I've looked at some important stories and thought; these are far too scientific, complicated, specialised and out of the mainstream to get coverage. And you know what- the journalists I've shown them to have understood their significance, investigated them, printed and broadcast stories based on the information. Some of the issues have not been easy to understand and have made my head hurt, but undeterred print, web, TV and radio journos have got into them and produced strong, informative, fair stories. 

I've always known we have some excellent journos but now I'm wondering if the NZ profession as a whole is much better than I ever appreciated.

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

22 October 2009

The Greenist thing we could do

Headline - DominionPost 22 Oct 2009 (& Stuff.com)

Save the Planet: time to eat dog?

on Stuff today.  To save you reading it the couple involved are not advocating eating dog, rather, I assumed, a subeditor sitting around at 7pm thought the headline would get the maximum shock value. Until I read:
"Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2987848/Save-the-planet-time-to-eat-dog/
I've come across a lot of eco-shock articles in the last while, probably a reaction to increased panic around global warming, that in itself creates more panic and worry and perhaps hysteria. (Hysteria is not the best word to use if you believe the planet and humanity have only 15 years left - as then it is justified urgent panic.)
I'm going to try my own version of eco-shock-urgency panic as well.
Consider humans are always going to impact on the 'natural' environment, our lifestyles, the way we think, our desire for warmth, better food, and quest for science and learning will always be a drain on the planet.  I remember as a young pseudo-lefty believing if we abolished private wealth greed would disappear (a la Russian Communist literature circa 1919 - new communist man).  I believe now it won't, so the idea that humanity can be taught to not want nice clothes, ace food and choice computer games is equally silly. Also try telling the Chinese and Indians they can't have nice stuff, and lifestyles similar to us and see how far you get.
Given then that humans will always be a drain on the planet - the most green thing we can do is swallow native tree seeds, dig big holes in our backyards and kill ourselves.  Or maybe someone could kill us and fill the hole in for us. 
So - now you've been shocked into thinking about doing the right thing and digging pits for you and your loved ones -  what do I actually think?
Unless we give more time and space to reasonable sustainable living experts who accept that all things affect our eco-systems (plants and animals, and human animals) and it's about working to manage these impacts with sustainable goals in mind.
The usually unspoken but clearly visible utopion ideal of living in little eco-bush shacks with as little eco-footprint as possible is a nice one but really people won't do it willingly, except of course some eco-puritans who are often already trying this.
Science.  We have to start resourcing science with as much effort as we can.  rather than spending 1% of GDP on science and allowing performing arts, media and coms graduates to be more numerous than science graduates, we need to actively prioritise the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place.










17 October 2009

The Martin Gulliver teapot

 

http://www.thestudio.co.nz/shop/Kitchenware/Kettles+Coffee++Tea+Maker/Blue+Spots+Teapot.html

Posted via email from SamNZed's posterous

Teapots

or more accurately; choosing a teapot

I've always liked tea and I don't use teabags- as a form of quality control more than anything. People I know complain about the hassles of leaf tea but really - are they that busy that they can't spend 30 seconds to use a teapot?

I see the teapot and strainer as a small ritual that ensures making the tea is as good as possible.  If you want a sandwich you have to do all sorts of things depending on your bread, use of spreads, whether you use butter or lettuce and tea making is surely less hassle than that.

The problem with tea is teapots. I've owned a lot of teapots - and 12 in the last 10 years. There are design faults with 99% of them.

I don't use metal teapots. So they may be better but I don't believe conducting a significant amount of the heat out of the teapot is a great way to start. 

So what are the common problems with teapots?

  • they dribble
  • the lids aren't fitted properly
  • the angle of getting the last of the tea out is sometimes well over 45 degrees causing tea to come out the lid
  • the internal of the pot has obstructions that block the tea coming out
  • the pots have weird cages inside which hinder infusion
  • they aren't balanced well so are very hard to pour when they are full
  • their handles are weak and break off after very little use

So I'd recommend avoiding novelty teapots. They never work well in my experience.

So once you've worked out what size teapot you need - numbers of cups - then here is what I would suggest before you buy.

1 How does it pour?  - check it our water before you buy.  Does it dribble?  What about when it's full? Is the spout low enough to get the tea from the bottom of the pot out without needing to tip the pot over 45 degrees?

2 is the lid rattly?  At what angle does it fall off?

3 does the inside of the pot where the spout meets the chamber have large holes that will allow large wet tea leaves to go through? (or are you going to get them blocked?)

4 is there a dumb cage? can you remove the cage and throw it out?

5 how strong is the handle? (okay and the spout?) 

If anyone is wanting to buy a good teapot that passes all these tests here's the one I own - a Martin Gulliver: 

http://www.thestudio.co.nz/shop/Kitchenware/Kettles+Coffee++Tea+Maker/Blue+Spots+Teapot.html

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

Telecom logo etc....

The new Telecom logo was launched yesterday.

I haven't done any brand and identity work in two years but it's a lot harder than people realise.  There are a range of tests when introducing a new 'visual' identity. I used ot have a checklist but can't find it... from memory there were 12 tests which required patent input, focus group testing, and applied design analysis.

So the checklist was things like:
 
- does it match the core brand identity and values?
- if a new identity what relationship does it have to the previous visuals and is that similiarity or dissimilarity appropriate?
- aesthetics (do people like it - artistic merit)?
- does it appeal to the key stakeholders of the organisation- what is customer reaction?
- is it a good match for the core services or goods?
- is it distinct from other visuals and logos?
- what does it look like on screen?
- can it be animated?
- does it have a brand sound?
- what is the spoken expression (radio advertisting)?
- are the design, colours and font proprietal and can be protected?
then
- how difficult is the logo to use (file size)?
- how easily does it print on a colour & a black and white printer?
- what redesigns are needed to all organisation's livery to make the new logo fit in with the visual suite?

 

 

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

12 October 2009

The problem with NZ coffee

I don't know if anyone else has noticed but getting hold of good mild and medium roasted coffee in NZ is almost impossible.

Of all the things wrong with my household when I was growing up coffee wasn't one of them.

We had fresh coffee, a grinder and a perculator in the early 70s. The beans came from a Chch company Browne and Heaton, the only South Island (non corporate) roaster in those days.  I remember when I was 11 trying an experiment where I had a flask of coffee and didn't go to sleep.  I think I just about fainted on a bus in town and the rest is a blur.

What was nice about that coffee was that it packed a punch but wasn't bitter. 

Years later when the coffee revolution started I bought the darkest and dirtiest coffee I could.  In my early 20s I would get the nastiest blackest roasts and inflict them on anyone who came near. In my time on the front line as a barrista I started to soften that expectation and experiment with flavour.

By the time I hit 30 I knew that coffee can have a milder roast, the same caffeine levels and have a subtelty of flavour and a richness of many layers. 

What struck me is that most coffee beans and grounds on sale are as darkly roasted as possible.  In fact they are sometimes roasted to be bitter (or perhaps those suppliers don't know what they are doing) and as black as is possible.

Why, why?  I kept asking myself..... until I noticed that most coffee businesses were set up by young men.

Why is so much of our coffee agressive and lacking in subtelty?  Because the rosters are.

It's all academic for me now.  I stopped drinking coffee a year ago, partly due to a medical 'thing' and partly as I couldn't find coffee I like.

But I think we need more sober drivers making coffee, and an ad campaign 'Only a bloody idiot burns coffee beans'.

 

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

07 October 2009

Social media resistance - taking the Great Leap Forwards

I was very slow to come onto Facebook. I couldn't see the point of it. I had tried a couple of blogs but it just seemed a little pointless. But when I was approaching directing Macbeth my friend Mel set up an event for actors to audition, and this was a huge success.  Within 6 months I was at 300 friends on FB, had a lil Green Patch and was kidnapping complete strangers.

I have a number of friends who are sort of on FB but not really, some who toy with LinkedIn as it's serious, and others who refuse to take Twitter seriously. Many of my age group aren't involved as there is a generational issue, it's more GenY than X and of the Xs I see involved a lot of those are born after 1970.  I've talked to a few peeps about Social media (which is a crap name but there you go) and there are a few issues which keep coming up:

- it's just silly

- I can use the phone or email

- I spend enough time on the computer already

- I'd rather meet people in person

- it's not real

 

Lookign at my experience 'it's not real' seems to me the key to Social Media participation.

And what I think it really means is something related to paradigm shift.  SM, blogging, vloggin, FB, etc... is a different way of looking at media, connections and indeed society.

We're in the middle of a revolution so big we can't see it sometimes. We're going from mass media, print and TV, and society to a new way of getting information, connecting to people, publishing. selling and indeed being.

At one end most urban people under 25 expect to be near a screen all the time.  The screen connects them and is as much part of their life as the local shops and schools and work. It's not a tool, it's a given part of their world.  They don't want to read newspapers or go to meetings or ... whatever. You get music, people, entertainment, learning etc.. If  we don't have adverts and publishing on-line we're not going to reach people - we won't be part of their world.

Last weekend I addressed a national group of reps for a voluntary org I'm on the board of.  I mentioned for our information campaign later in 2010 I'm planning to use social media and web advertising.  it didn't go down well. Some people were fine but many saw it as a waste of time and not a real thing to spend time on.

The resistance I find is from peeps who just don't know how it works, can't see any benefits and can't understand because of the old paradigm is so different. To 'get it' there is a shift into a new way of viewing the world.  I've gone from fear and mistrust to excitement about what is possible. I had an AHA moment. And it started for me because Facebook helped me achieve something. And that was just over 2 years ago.  My suggestion is if you want to introduce people to the virtual world - show them something that can benefit them that they can understand.

My passion has grown as I have followed the rise in web traffic and advertising and engaged in Twitter and sourced suppliers and got contacts for a range of projects. I'm still hesitant to try new things but taking the leap - initially rationalised as learning more for my PR work - has had huge benefits.

Not bad for a grumpy old bastard.

 

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

Son of Not buying it

Another thing I avoid is products made in China. It's not about quality, or price but more about a feeling of unease that just about all the things I eat, plug in, wear, watch or read are made in the same country, which isn't here.  I'm sure the Chinese are wonderful people: kind to animals, nice to elderly grandparents, like outings, walks on the beach, want to make love not war, but the economic impact of 90% of NZ's goods coming from one nation seems unwise.

Actually I do have reservations about the Chinese political system and their growing regional and international dominance, but I spose if they are hell bent on world domination economic domination is not as bad as military options. Given we're probably living in the last days of the European empire and the Asian one is just starting we need to expect some form of change.

So when I'm shopping I don't buy peanut butter made in China (most of it is), or any food products, and try to avoid clothes made there.Although I know the T shirt I have on is from China - but try buying one in NZ that isn't!  Again pointless gestures as Jayden and Allisa NuZilan are buying all this stuff and don't care, but as I said last time- we're told economically an individual makes a difference (excuse me while I try not to snort my tea back up).

Next post may be Revenge of Not Buying it, an impassioned treatise on why everyone should avoid the gift shop round the road.

 

 

 

 

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

05 October 2009

Not buying it

I was at uni in the days of the student left and when we needed to be politically sound - which came before being politically correct.  We 'had' to boycott all South African products and the shops they were sold in, anything from Chile, anything deemed sexist or racist by 'us', products which were made in Asia and by a range of companies.  It was tough and a high standard was expected of those of us who described ourselves as progressive. One guy I knew unknowingly went to a bar that had once had women jelly wrestlers and was hauled over the coals and ostracised.  The personal was political and everything you said and did was subject to scrutiny.

Aside from some Animal Rights and vegetarian groups I haven't heard much of this sort of blacklisting and boycotts in recent years. 

Undeterred I have maintained by own one-person list of protests and boycotts. Some are noble and just, some of them are just a little twisted and others are inconsistent and silly.

The Mobil Petrol station on the site of the Sure to Rise Bakery - The former Edmonds site was bought and the iconic building demolished for a large forecourt and a Mobil petrol station. I used to live 2 minutes away and I never bought petrol there.  AND it failed and closed.  I liked to think the site was cursed but the Couplands Bakery and Raewards Fruit and Vege shops there now are doing well I see.

Cadbury Chocolate - it's not about palm kernels but more that we have locally owned chocolate companises and Whittakers seems worth supporting. Also the shrinking of the bars, adding cardboard and charging the same price is just far too cynical.  Not that I buy big bars of chocolate...

The Absolutely Fabulous Bookshop in the Mall between Hereford and High Streets - the bookshop with the least understanding of customer service and the lowest level of imagination I've ever seen, from the ripped-off name, misspelt signs, the questionable use of copyrighted images to the mean lowspirited of the owner who would refused to talk to you unless you bought something.  I went there a few times and was a little grumpy about the way she treated me and other customers, the final visit was when I was going to buy a few things but first asked first about a product, she ignored me and walked away. That business too closed.

Eggs which aren't free range - a no brainer really, yes they cost more, but really.

Foreign-owned options - see chocolate but if there's an NZ-owned option I'll usually take that unless quality is way too low or price really far too high, it's about jobs.This goes for tinned goods, packaged goods, power companies, TV, appliances (buy Goldair) and retail chains.This is why I almost always shop at New World or PakNSave - I don't like the idea of NZ workers being exploited by Aussie companies when we can do that ourselves.  One exception; Telstra over Telecom an historical anomoly and I sometimes swap between news to catch John Campbell or Nightline.

Union Carbide products - they used to own Eveready and Glad and I began boycotting them due to the Bhopal disaster in India which 25 years later remains the worst industrial accident ever (20,000 dead!).

Westpac Bank - it was Westpac that began charging for EFtPos transactions for customers from other banks, leading to them all doing the same. Thanks Westpac for a great contribution to banking.

Non-South Island cheese - misguided but makes choosing easier.

Nes- anything (including Maggi, Wonka, Friskies and Kraft) - There's something about Nestle. Maybe it's they made us change how they say their name or turning Qick into NesQuik, or maybe it's their questionable labour practises, supposed connections to Mugabe and accusations around infant milk in Africa and South America.

Snickers Bars - some years ago they had a TV ad about someone fasting to raise awareness on poverty but then confronted with a Snickers the activist gave up the protest.  To me this was insulting on so many levels and also has a corporate 'Nyah nyah na na nah!' to anyone who believes in anything.  I don't eat many chocolate bars so this boycott isn't too hard.

Futile I know but we've been led to believe that even if one of us takes a stand it does make a difference. Actually I really don't buy that, but it's good to feel I'm not buying something for ethical or moral reasons.

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

04 October 2009

Who owns your brand?

I've done a lot of 'brand' work over the last 15 years and what I love about it is it's about identity. I find organisations fascinating and often thought if I ever did formal study again I'd want to look at organisations - identity, culture, and how they are more than the sum of their parts.  Organisations include businesses, ngos, nations, families and any place where people join together as an entity. 

Many people are fascinated with personal identity - which explains the popularity of horoscopes, blogs, personality quizzes and so on.  In organisations a lot of these quizzes about personal working styles (Jane is a harmonising finisher and Peter is a competitve explorer etc...) seem to be about working out who's the hands or fingers, who's the spleen, who's the brain and who's part of the digestive tract. In my experience in large organisations the digestive tracts are particularly large.

What is interesting is while I have spent a lot of time concerned with managing perceptions of  brands it has become clear to me that no organisation I have worked for has ever owned their brand.  Likewise with personal brands, you can choose how you want to be perceived and work toward it but really you never do own it.

I've not done any searches on this and I know it's not going to be a brand new (ho ho) observation, but it seems to me that the brand is owned by the audiences.  I realised that because that's where I go to measure brand equity. In other words, in case this isn't clear, if I'm measuring perceptions of people who are customers, or staff to measure the brand the brand actually held by those customers or staff. 

Same with personal brand I might think I'm a nice guy but if everyone says I'm an arse, what am I?

So brand managers are really stylists and the audiences are the judges.You can say something about your organisation over and over, but if the customer doesn't believe it it's not true.

 

Posted via web from SamNZed's posterous

03 October 2009

Basket case economy

Had a chat with a good friend the other day, when I say chat it was a series of tweets, but the issue was one thing that holds us both back from blogging is not knowing enough sometimes to be authoritative. That is commenting on stuff we really don't know enough about.  So with that in mind and noting I do realise I am not an expert on very much here is my postulations about the NZ economy.

I love New Zealand.  I love Christchurch where I live. What I have noted, during my lifetime, is the gradual but consistent lowering of the standard of living of New Zealanders.  New Zealand has not had a real balance of payments surplus since 1973 - here are some tables on our economy http://www.reservebank.govt.nz/statistics/econind/ 

I'm not going to argue this - while there have been some years where exports have exceeded imports any surplus has been wiped out by repatriation of profit to foreign owned businesses.

So what I have seen is the removal of businesses and production overseas, increases in foreign ownership, a decline in both the standard of living, wage rates, jobs and NZ slipping in the OECD rankings.  Our regions are getting less prosperous and the number of corporates and head offices shrinks in all our regions (except maybe Auckland but they are moving overseas). Also we're producing more theatre, communications and media graduates than we are biotechnology graduates.

Meanwhile no NZ Govt has really had the analysis, the guts or the will to develop an economic and regional development strategy since 1973. 

I freely admit I am overstating this -but not by too much.

So more another time, but it does bother me.

Posted via email from SamNZed's posterous

27 September 2009

Man on the moon

Love the REM song Man on the Moon. The song was a highlight in the movie of the same name on Andy Kaufman, particularly effective on the big screen with large sound system.
The movie wasn't so good. Having looked at the book I was keen to see the movie, Andy Kaufman suffered the same problem Peter Sellars did and that is he really didn't know who he was. The movie failed to nail this, they had him making many frank admissions and talking to people when it was clear in the book he wasn't capable of it.  (The movie trailer)
 (Springsteen joins REM)

But that's not what I was thinking about when I heard the song today.

What I thought about was 'do you believe they put a man on the moon?'. 
I do.

I also don't believe the US or UK Governments faked 9/11 or 9/9.

Or that the UN is a giant conspiracy to overthrow the US Constitution and has an army of black helicopters.

I think we're in the 'New Dark Ages'; science is openly ridiculed, superstition in the form of weird consipiracies are all the go and religious fundamentalism in the major religions is thriving. 

Worth a screenplay or play I think.

Posted via email from SamNZed's posterous

testing

Just seeing if I can email posts

Posted via email from SamNZed's posterous

Dumb dumb dumb = iSnack2.0

So the story is the new Vegemite product is to be called iSnack2.0.  Assuming the name survives any legal challenges from Apple it's dumb.
http://bit.ly/U5HBy or more usefully - 'It's vegemite but it's different' http://www.vegemite.com.au/vegemite/page?siteid=vegemite-prd&locale=auen1&PagecRef=758
Yes '27-year-old father-of-two from Western Australia Web designer Dean Robbins has coined the name for the new Vegemite, with his winning entry chosen from a field of almost 35,074 submissions'.  The other 35,073 submissions must have barked and howled badly (although there were only 16,071 unique names).  And why not entrust branding and naming of products to anyone?  It's easy isn't it.  I mean writing is easy - we can all use a keyboard. Logos are easy - we can all draw pictures.  And after all - we're all experts in politics and business as we can listen to Radio Live or TV news. Even though we're all experts and qualified to design brands and names I suspect Dean saw lots of fun in the design and thats how he came up with it.
There are three clusters of reasons I think it's dumb. In reverse order of significance
1) Brand identity and Brands dependent on other brands
Apart from using 'i' being brand theft, let's assume Apple let it go on the grounds they're not in the revolting spreads market. You can't have your product dependent on the whim and fortunes of another brand. While it is unlikely Apple may do something dumb, pollute all of a province of China, be bankrupted in an IP case, whatever.
And here's the thing - what are they saying? That this is a snack with Wifi?  That this is a snack for people who own an iPhone? Does this spread come off your Mp3 player easily?  We've mixed silicon chips through it?   Probably that this is the spread for cool young people.  Have they got a budget to place it in that market?  Is it part of a brand strategy or just a folly?  And so are they now gonna rebrand the wrapper to look 'cool and sweet for yuff'?
2) Spoken brand
How do you say it?   Eye snack two point one will never work. So it will be i snack OR worse vegemitesnack or ivege (or 'cream vegemite')  2.0 is just not gonna survive Don, Doreen, Jayden and Allysa's breakfast time. (Just give me coffee and pass the cream vegemite stuff!)
People will never write it correctly - not so important in an age where people don't write anymore but I can imagine dairy owners misspelling it badly as it has a '.', a capital in a strange place, and snack is as easily misspelt as potato. [hint: there is no e in potato or tomato UNLESS  pluralised].
3) Longevity
Ten years ago when I led changing the physical branding for the Christchurch City Council we were presented with one option which was a graphic presentation of  www.ccc.govt.nz rather than saying Christchurch City Council.  The designers said that this would show we were modern and up-to-the-minute. (They also had a well-meaning promotion campaign in their pocket that was effectively 'Hey we have a website!'). While almost all companies had websites then the other main reason we rejected it was because it sounded and looked very nice and futuristic at the time, and that meant it would date quickly.
iSnack2.0 looks like a temporary product. That may be the strategy but if it did for some weird reason take-off (perhaps lots of people getting depressed and seeing it as a low-level self harming masochistic thing) the name will need to be rebranded very quickly - probably to VSnack or, if Apple don't make it hard, iSnack.
I really don't like competitions in the brand, design and naming area. Yes they build popular support, but no they don't hit the mark for the strategies you should be following.  Also, in the case of - 'draw us a logo' you end up with things you can't use any of, creating a disappointment or rejection of customer participation.
Why do I care?  I take brand strategy far too seriously. Understanding what products, services and organisations do of value to their communities, customers and stakeholders is one of the things I do. Really though I hate seeing a job in this area done badly. If we leave it to amateurs we all look like amateurs.


26 September 2009

Ch ch ch ch changes

I went to a conference once where 'Changes' was the theme and all through the event Bowie's Changes was played.  Essentially the conference was good but not that many changes in PR were clearly sketched at the time (late 90s).  When I reviewed the notes maybe 5 years ago when I was throwing stuff out it occured to me again that you don't always see the changes for what they are.  We talked about email and mentioned the web but the full extent of the revolution wasn't clear.

Anyway on a personal note I've been grappling with a few issues of career, family, passion and although what is changing is not obvious yet I have discovered my attitude towards writing is again altering. 

19 September 2009

Quantum randomness

'Anyone who has not shocked by Quantum theory has not understood it' Niels Bohr 1885-1962

The world was apparently turned inside-out with quantum physics and I love the idea that particles more than light years apart are somehow in sync or communicating and that the certainty of the physical world may not be as certain as we think.

BUT

The physical world is pretty dependable.  If I leave something on the clothes line it is there or i can usually find it or there is a very clear physical explanation of where it has gone. Of course car keys are not always where I leave them but that may be random failures in my brain.

So yes I am shocked but at the same time I don't understand how Quantum theory affects the physical world I live in.

16 September 2009

Living in the past

Every now and again I realise I am reacting or acting based on the past. Bugger.

14 September 2009

Obsession du jour - Social Media and internal communications

I have been reasonably sure for a while that corporate PR has to change. This is due to the fundamental changes in media and communication wrought by the web (often called social media). In my earlier career it was easier to have a staff policy that only spokespeople can talk to media. It would usually work.
There were problems sometimes with people at public meetings or being interviewed or reported for an outside work issue. And of course at a barbecue staff could say anything. 

But then sometime a few years ago it all started to change. First there were bulletin boards and news groups.  these were followed by Blogging, Facebook, LinkedIn Youtube, and now Twitter. Now people are more visible and having meangingful policies on controlling their views and activities is impossible. There are employment policies of course but really.....  You can get staff blogging via work controlled blogs, but really they can still blog in their own time.

Also social media has created potential to harm brands and companies - consider
Burger King staff member having a bath in the BK sink http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1iyN7Y-jJQ
McDonald's staff wrestling http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSdBKG6pYGc

And of course there are videos of misbehaving staff and blogs and Facebook posts running down companies.  You can have a complicated system to monitor blogs, bulletin boards, as well as Talkback and other media but that doesn't address the problem.

The real answer is that we can't control people. When jobs were for life there was a chance.

The solution I think is we need to start to place internal communication where it should be in the communication tool kit: right next to customer and shareholder PR - at the top. Not an add-on or something run by HR.  Meaningful, planned, sustained communication with and from staff, and the building of a sustainable and constructive internal culture need to be a priority.

Happy, loyal and positive staff are the best defence against the ravages of FB, Twitter and YouTube, they are also the best opportunity to succeed in the new environment.  These staff will also provide defence against customer backlash and other 'crisis' issues.