Does The Wall really make sense?

As a college teacher, I avoid expressing political opinions in class.....but the new semester has not yet started yet, so, here are my comments on the proposed border wall, which is the consuming sticking point on the federal government shutdown.

1.  Big/long walls are not effective.  The full extent of the Berlin Wall required watch towers and guards, and people still got across.  The Great Wall of China (I've been there) is really a series of watch towers and an elevated road connecting them, not a barrier.  A good extension ladder would get people over The Great Wall pretty easily. 

2.  A border wall would require intensive guarding.  It would cost billions annually  for cameras, drones, aircraft, and ground patrols along nearly 2,000 miles of fence.  It would require hundreds of not thousands of guards.

3.  In spite of that, people WILL find a way over, under, around, or through the wall, when guards happen to NOT be looking. Humans are ingenious, particularly when their lives are in danger.  

4. The real cost of The Wall would be $30+ Billion, which that does not include the huge ongoing personal and programmatic costs mentioned in #2 above.  

5.  The wall would require condemnation of private property and destruction of wildlife sanctuaries.  In Texas, at least, one-third of the land needed for the border wall is owned by the federal government or Native American tribes. The rest is owned by states and private property owners, some of it owned before statehood. 

6.  The proposed wall would violate Christian teaching and whether or not you are Christian, it is hard to defend in terms of ethics and morality, particularly since the focus of stopping people is refugees seeking asylum because their lives are threatened back home.  

7. Drugs do not come in via refugees seeking asylum, but rather come hidden in luggage through legal checkpoints, or tunnels, drone flights, etc.  Any drug argument related to advocating for the wall is specious. 

8.  Illegal immigration has been down every year since 2007. I don't like the family separations and internment camps of the Trump administration, but what we have been doing for the last decade is working. 

9.  Most "illegal immigrants" have been in this country for more than a decade, such as overstaying their visas. A high percentage of them have children who are citizens by birthright.

10.  I am sorry, buy I do not trust the president to make wise decisions.  His constant logical fallacies, outright lies, and the way his actions reveal his morality have left me feeling that virtually everything he does lacks any semblance of critical thinking. So I am suspicious of his rationale. 

The conservative Cato Institute says, “President Trump’s wall would be a mammoth expenditure that would have little impact on illegal immigration.”

For the president and the current GOP, the Wall is a symbol of fear that would cost a huge amount of money and would not be effective, because it is not based on evidence or a solid plan.

The better solution is comprehensive and realistic immigration reform, period.

What can we learn about the 2nd Amendment from 1st Amendment court rulings?

I am not a gun enthusiast, but I have taught Communication Law.  So every time I hear 2nd Amendment arguments, I think in terms of the 1st Amendment, which says:

Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In the 1st amendment case law, "no law" clearly does NOT mean "NO law."

If it meant NO law, there would be no laws about slander or libel, no local ordinances requiring parade permits, and no laws about lots of other behaviors that come under the legal definition of "speech."

The courts have ruled that the "no law" 1st Amendment protections are very important, except in narrowly-defined circumstances in which there is a "clear and present danger" resulting from the speech or behavior (Schenck v. the United States).  The most common example is shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no real fire," but the courts have also ruled that "speech" such as child pornography, inciting people to commit crimes, and slander/libel is NOT protected under the 1st Amendment.

In each case, it is because the lawmakers have voted, and the courts confirmed, that such "speech" represents a "clear and present danger" of harm to others.

So how do we apply this same logic to the 2nd Amendment issue of gun ownership, and particularly of assault weapons?

First, the 2nd Amendment does not mention guns, but rather covers "arms" a collective term for weapons of all types.

Second, the 2nd Amendment does not use the phrase "shall make no law." It refers to the right of the people "keep and bear arms" and says that this right "shall not be infringed."  (Note that this is written in "passive voice" and it does not identify who might be doing the infringing.)

Still, the wording of the two amendments seems to have similar intent, so my original question about what we can learn about the 2nd Amendment from 1st Amendment case law remains valid.

The reality is that there are lots of national, state, and local laws and regulations limiting the ownership of a wide range of weapons. In Chicago, for example, it is illegal to carry concealed a knife with a blade longer than 2.5 inches. In New York, it is illegal to carry a dirk, dagger, or stiletto with the intent to use it as a weapon against another. You can't own your own nuclear weapon because of risk of radioactive contamination, not to mention the actual explosions (arguably a "clear and present danger").

These rules would appear to violate the absolute "shall not be infringed" requirement.  But when we look at the 2nd Amendment and 1st Amendment together, it only makes sense that the same legal theories apply.

Thus, it only makes sense that arms CAN be regulated, based on the same criteria as the 1st Amendment protections:

1. Is the law well-constructed, i.e. specific enough, but also not so narrow that it doesn't make sense?
2. Is there a "clear and present danger" resulting from lack of regulation, making it in the best interests of society for the government to make an exception to the constitutional protection?

It is this "clear and present danger" test that is the focal point of the gun regulation issue.

We regulate child pornography because children may be harmed in the making of it, even though we cannot predict which children, where, are at risk. 

How does this logic translate to regulation of weapons which COULD be used in mass shooting, but there is no way to predict when and where these shootings may occur?  Is this enough of a "clear and present danger" that an exception to the right to "bear" certain categories of weapons is compelling?

Regardless of what you think about the subject, the final decisions will be made via court review of legislation, based on meticulous legal arguments derived from principles such as those above.

Whatever the legislation says, the courts will not affirm, overturn, or otherwise take action based on emotions.

No More "Like and Share" - Maybe

Facebook's new policy about keeping "Engagement Bait" out of the newsfeed is intended to eliminate posts with "like and share this post" calls to action.  But liking and sharing is part of the engagement that marketers really want.

So what do they do?

First, let's take a step back and analyze why "like and share this post" has been so common.  There are three things to consider:

1.  Some marketers do superficial planning and all they want is good numbers.  Liking and sharing does cause more people to see a post, although they may not be the best people, i.e. the ideal prospective customers or key stakeholders of the business/organization making the original post. 

2.  Facebook has also been downgrading the ability of a post to spread via organic sharing and liking.  Facebook is a business and they are incentivizing marketers to spend money to deliver their posts (which are really advertising messages) to constituents who are selected by various categories and interests. 

3.  Persuasion theory says that we get people to do big things by first getting them to do little things that build towards the big thing.  Liking and sharing our posts demonstrates support, and repeated small demonstrations of such support set the stage for larger acts of support, like buying our product or voting for our candidate.  So, getting people to like and share has a strategic role.

So how do we respond to the new Facebook rules?

Marketing communications is about brand persuasion, and brand persuasion requires engagement -- a two-way interactive relationship between our business/organization and our customers/constituents.

So, we still want people to like and share, but we'll have to use more creative language.  Language like "pass this along" and "tell us what you think" are likely to become more common.  And marketers will need to monitor their insights (statistical reports from Facebook) about performance of messages containing various calls to action, to see which work best.

But the reality is that as social media matures, it is going to cost more money to use it for marketing.

Up to now, the costs have been relatively hidden -- the staff time for people to create posts and maintain the page, and the costs to develop customized content, like graphics, photography, and video.

More and more, organizations are going to need to use paid reach to get their messages to the people they want to reach. A small business may be able to do this with only $15 or $20 a post, a handful of times a month, reaching a few thousand people. Bigger businesses, of course, will need more money to reach the hundreds of thousands or millions of people they need.

So, strategic planning, including budgeting, is a new reality of Social Media Marketing.

The Star Wars Cycle of Storytelling

I've been surprised to learn that there are people who are quite unhappy with
The Last Jedi. One of the complaints is that none of the original heroes remain.

This article makes the point clearly that it is painful for fans to have heroes age and become secondary characters. There are also complaints that the film did not meet the expectations of fans, that we didn't really find out about Rey's family, didn't find out where Snoke came from, and many other complaints about details.

On the other hand, there were complaints that The Force Awakens was too much of a retread of A New Hope.

I see Star Wars as recurring cycle of tried and true storytelling, and The Last Jedi fits right in.

I have written before about "A Heroes Journey", the standard formula that pervades ancient Western myth, identified decades ago by Joseph Campbell, and which we see so often in stories today. A young reluctant hero is called to a journey that takes him out of his ordinary experience and discovers a villain or threat to which he has a hidden connection.  He has companions who help him as he is tested, and an older mentor.  The older mentor is "taken away", and the young hero most stand up to the villain alone, eventually triumphing and returning to his ordinary life.  (Note: In the ancient myths studied by Campbell, the hero was always male.)

Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings are all basically this same "Hero's Journey" story.

In The Force Awakens, most of the focus was on the young hero, Rey, and her companions.  Han Solo became her older mentor, and he was "taken away."  In The Last Jedi, more of the focus is on Luke, now Rey's older mentor. In due course, he also leaves the stage, in a way that is similar to how Obi Wan left in A New Hope.

We know that Leia will not return for the next film, and other possible older mentors, like Vice Admiral Holdo, are also gone. In perfect keeping with Campbell, it is time for the young reluctant hero to stand up and directly confront evil.

We also know that the older mentors have histories in which they were likely the younger heroes.  We got the history of Obi Wan in episodes 1, 2 & 3.  The Fantastic Beasts movies will tell us more about Dumbledore's youthful adventures.  Gandalf implied past adventures with the family of Bilbo.

So in a story spanning decades, it is not surprising to see changing roles.

When we look at Star Wars as a recurring cycle of storytelling, which I am convinced is how the writers and producers see it, it allows us to project things we might see in the final movie of the trilogy:

1.  Luke will return in astral form.  Han might also.

2.  Rey WILL be revealed to have some sort of hidden family connection to Ben, in spite of what will turn out to be Ben's misdirection about her heritage. This also means a hidden connection to all of the Skywalker and maybe Solo ancestry. Whatever the answer is will explain the symbolism of Rey seeing multiple versions of herself, receding into the distance, in the mirror.

3.  Ben will have some sort of redemption and atonement, as Anakin did before him.  I still think that he wants to complete his grandfather's work by "balancing the force."  Nobody is clear what defines this "balance" but he presumably has his own ideas about it. 

Of course, these points leave out a wealth of detail, but they are the recurring plot elements to be expected from Star Wars as a Joseph Campbell Hero's Journey.  Remember, however, that as Campbell also said, it is not what is similar that defines a story.  Creativity is in innovation, i.e. how the formula is used in a way that feels new and fresh.

Formula Scripts in TV and Movies

The growth of original series on streaming video services and cable has resulted in an explosion in the demand for scripts and "pitches" for series, not to mention movies, many of which never end up getting produced.

Nevertheless, many of these scripts, as diverse as they are, follow the same basic formulas.  One could argue that a "formula script" lacks creativity...but creativity actually resides in how new it feels, i.e. what is different, as opposed to what is similar to other uses of the formula.

Here are three storytelling formulas that we see over and over, including one that I consider to be particularly troubling:

1.  The Hero's Journey.  

In the 1940s, Joseph Campbell studied myths from many cultures (mostly Western) and found common elements.  A young reluctant hero is called to a journey that takes him out of his ordinary experience and discovers a villain or threat to which he has a hidden connection.  He has fellow travelers who help him as he is tested, and an older mentor.  The older mentor is taken away, and the young hero most stand up to the villain alone, eventually triumphing and returning to his ordinary life.

Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings are all basically this same "Hero's Journey" story.  Even the original Die Hard movie used a lot of elements from this formula.

Because this formula is so familiar, writers use it all the time, or at least elements from it. The familiarity allows readers/listeners/viewers to easily engage in the story.

2.  Save the Cat

Save the Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You’ll Ever Need by Blake Snyder
was published in 2005 and rapidly became the "bible" for many movie writers.  Save the Cat software is even available to help writers structure their story to Snyder's sequence of "beats."  If you know what to look for, you can find these "beats" in many movies and even TV shows.

At one level, Save the Cat is an interpretation of how to translate Joseph Campbell into visual storytelling terms.  At another level, it allows writers to make use of the psychology of the audience in terms of primary and secondary (A & B) stories, major milestones in the plot, and pacing.

Follow those links and you may be surprised.

3. Dystopia

Dystopia is the opposite of Utopia.  In dystopian stories, times are dark, there is little hope, and people are generally bad.  Such stories are often set in the future, with totalitarian governments, dehumanized citizenry, rampant crime, and environmental disaster.  Brave New World, 1984, and Lord of the Flies were dystopian, but in the last decade, we have been deluged by dystioian settings for movies, books, and TV shows.  Sometimes the heroes are admirable, but sometimes not.

Science Fiction writer and futurist David Brin has call dystopian stories lazy, cliched, and cookie cutter.  They are easy stories to tell, resonate with conspiracy theory and suspicion of authority, and they often do not require nuanced characters, which makes it a lot easier for the writers to create.

What does it mean?

The main goal of the movie, television, and publishing industries is to make money.  To make money, they need to produce content that audiences will buy.

That is why so many stories today follow the Hero's Journey, Save the Cat and Dystopian structures.  They resonate with people and gain acceptance more easily than some unusual storytelling approach, but to their foundation of familiarity.

The question media critics and even psychologists must ask is how these stories affect our psyches. The media has incredible power to influence people's perceptions and actions.  Heroes, like Luke, Harry, and Frodo, may well subtly influence people to do what is right in the real world, not just what is easy.

But how about the modern dystopian orientation of story after story? Does it subtly influence people to see conspiracies everywhere, distrust authority, accept thoughtless ideology, and expect people to conform to the dictates of the perceived majority?

Waves of dystopian fiction usually come during times of social unrest and war.  Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 459, and Animal Farm all stemmed from the Cold War and deep concerns about communism. Today's stories are written against a background of seemingly endless war, unstoppable terrorism, and fake news.

This recent New Yorker article suggests that for every present-day dilemma, there is a dystopian novel to match it, and that the resulting "radical pessimism" has resulted in the unravelling of trust in science and the weakening of a commitment to political pluralism.

I think that dystopian story after dystopian DOES affect our national mood and makes "the ends justify the means" more and more acceptable, when it shouldn't be. So if the "heroes" are unlikable and do unethical things to each other, don't expect me to watch.

What I'm Looking for in Star Trek Discovery

I have largely been avoiding the studio/network hype about the new Star Trek series. But I have very clear ideas about what I am looking for, and what don't want to see.

Let me preface my comments by saying that I watched the very first broadcast of Star Trek in the United States in 1966.  I have seen every Star Trek episode and movie, and read quite a few of the books.

I know first hand WHY Star Trek became so popular in the 1960s and 70s -- its unique spirit of hope for a positive future, coming in a time characterized by summer-long race riots in major cities, a military draft sending young men off to die in what was widely considered to be a unjust war, and of course the country trearing itself apart over Watergate. This social context is mostly lost on young people watching the old episodes today.

In many ways, Star Trek functions as a modern myth.  It is a story told time-after-time, with variations each time. But the underlying message of hope, ethics, diversity, and professional behavior always remains (at least when Trek is done well).  These are the things that will determine how much I like what I see in "DSC."

So here are seven things I want, or do not want, in the new Star Trek series when it premiers this coming Sunday:

1.  I want to see professional officers treating each other with respect, even when under duress. The recent avalanche across the media of unlikable characters doing unethical things to each other leaves me totally uninterested.  It is called "Dystopian" storytelling, because it represents the opposite of the "Utopian" ideal society.  It is lazy storytelling and does not belong in Star Trek, in my opinion.

2.  I don't care if the starships and sets don't perfectly fit the feel of being a decade before the Original Series Enterprise. Because Discovery is basically "retelling the myth" the producers are allowed to employ modern production design, in my opinion.  But I will like when there are resonances.

3.  I want thoughtful, nuanced scripts that have subtle layers of meaning, and do not depend on unlikely coincidences to advance the plot. One of the things that long-term fans want most, I think, is solid stories that aren't filled with plot holes.  this is why many are unhappy withe ht J.J. Abrams movies - the plot holes.

4.  Oh, and bad guys need to make sense. Too often in all the media, bad guys are bad just for the sake of being bad. On the other hand, Khan was such a powerful and popular villain because we COULD clearly understand the circumstances that led him to hate Kirk.  I like nuanced antagonists with motivation that makes sense.

5.  On a related note, Klingons have been done to death in Trek.  Given that we have them yet again, I do not want them to be cardboard.  Theirs is a rich culture with both positive and negative things in its history. I hope they come cross as more than aggressive jerks.

6. When they do reference characters from The Original Series, like Sarek or Harry Mudd, I want them to feel like the same characters, even though they are played by different actors.  Don't "reimagine" them.

7.  I must say that the highly detailed continuity of Star Trek appeals to me. I do not mind DSC filling in gaps, but I really don't want the producers contradicting something that is well established in on-screen Trek, just for expediency.  All science fiction includes world building. This world of Star Trek is already rich and complex. I want DSC to work within it.

So there you have it -- what I am looking for in the new incarnation of Star Trek. I understand that I am too old be in the target demographic CBS is looking for with this new series.  But that doesn't mean that I am not entitled to evaluate how closely the network is supporting the long-term "brand identify" of Star Trek.

Five strategies to get the most from your online marketing

I have worked and taught in the field of media all my life, so I know the important role that advertising plays in providing the profitability which allows content that serves the public.

But online advertising often isn't accomplishing what it should.

This article makes a couple of important points, showing that online advertising is far from a mature industry, and often does not accomplish the goals of the advertiser.

Procter & Gamble cut more than $100 million in digital marketing spending in the June quarter but there was little impact on its business, proving that their digital ads were largely ineffective. 

The two most common complaints about digital advertising are that 1) advertisers are paying for ads that are viewed and clicked on by bots, not humans; and 2) ads are placed by thousands of automated “ad exchanges” that are out of control of the advertiser on sites and pages that don’t match the advertiser’s products.

I have been teaching for almost 20 years that the Internet should be seen in terms of the relationships it facilitates, not in terms of the technology.  I am fully convinced that the Internet, websites, and social media can be used to foster beneficial relationships between businesses/organizations and their customers/constituents.  But I am not convinced that display advertising, inserted into websites and social media feeds, is the way to do it.

It is relatively easy to create an ad and then pay one of these ad exchanges to place the add in various sites and feeds THEY choose, based on the demographic information YOU specify. They later tell you how many users saw or clicked on the advertisement.  As the article explains, there is great potential for the advertiser to be deceived about effectiveness, due to automated click bots, or the ad exchange putting the ads in bogus (or shall we say suboptimal) locations.

So how SHOULD businesses and organizations use social media and the Internet to promote their brand?

Here are my five strategies to get the most value out of your online marketing communications:

1.  You have to engage in TWO-WAY interaction with your audience

Give them content that is relevant to their interests and when they respond, respond BACK to them to show them you are listening.  This takes time, planning, and smarts.

The social media, itself, may be free, but the bigger your organization is, the more people hours and budget it takes to plan and create the content, to listen around the clock, and to make replies and help solve problems, all while perfectly aligning with your brand image and brand promise.

This process doesn't work via one-way advertising.

2.  Use strong CONTENT MARKETING 

People respond positively when the messages they receive are relevant to them. Messages that are not relevant get ignored, and frequent irrelevant messages may result in unfollowing.  This is why businesses and organizations need to REALLY understand their customers -- who and where they are, their interests, and why they are or should be interested in what WE have to offer.

The highly-relevant content we create may be posted right in our social media feeds. It might be in a blog or other format that is linked to from our social media.  But is also needs to be well-optimized for search engines, because the specific topic of the one particular content piece may be what allows someone to find us and decide to like/follow us.

This content will surely include text, but also video, graphics, and photography custom-produced for your social media posts.

3.  Time of day you post is really important

Post your content at a time when YOUR people are most likely to be reading, so your content does not scroll down and get lost in the clutter.  Some platforms may TELL you when your people are on.  If not, you can experiment with posts in different day parts.

4.  Call to Action

Every post should be crafted to stimulate some kind of action, even as simple as liking the post.

In persuasion theory, the way to get people to do BIG things is to first get them to agree to little things, and to then lead them along, step-by-step, toward the bigger things. These little things, as simple as liking or sharing, gets their thinking aligned the way you want, so when the bigger need or opportunity arises, they are pre-disposed to take the important action steps you want.

So EVERY content post should include some form of call to action.

5.  Seek both frequency and reach

For decades, the dual emphases for advertising have been frequency and reach.

Reach means you DO want to get your message to as many people as possible, to help find prospects, i.e. people with whom you are not in contact.  Your goal in online reach should be to get people to like/follow your feeds, or otherwise make initial contact.

But for building and strengthening the relationship between you and your constituents, the frequency of interaction is vital. The more positive contacts your audience has with you, the more likely they are to buy (or do whatever the action goals of your organization are), and this is driven by the frequency of contacts.

Of course, don't overwhelm them with 147 posts a day.  Find the daily or weekly frequency that is right for you and them.

The balance between frequency and reach may be different for different businesses/organizations, but remember that they do different things and your online marketing content should never be only one or the other.

Reach is making initial contact.  Freqency is about cementing the relationship.


Final Thoughts

Lots of people think that if they USE social media, they will automatically be effective at marketing via social media.  Not really true.

There are many dimensions that must be accounted for and planned in social media marketing that go way beyond being a user.

I'll be teaching an online course on social media marketing in the spring semester through my school, Wayne State College. It will be regular tuition, but anyone anywhere can enroll, in a degree program or not, for undergraduate or graduate credit.

If you're interested, let me know.  Registration will be in October.

 

The Psychology of Colors

I tell my marketing communication students that every detail of the communication between a business or organization and its constituents must reinforce the fundamental positioning and brand promise of the organization. This includes the colors used in visual communication.

My friend and former student Rhea tweeted a link to the infographic at the bottom of this page, reminding me of a design course I previously taught in which we addressed the meaning conveyed by colors.  It shows why businesses select the colors used in their logos and marketing materials VERY carefully.

Take oil company logos, for example.  Many of them make strong use of red to signalled power, energy, and boldness. Blue represents trust and loyalty, and the white stands for cleanliness and purity.  Gulf's orange represents nature, confidence, and innovation. These colors support the image the company want to project, or at least did in years past, when the logos were created.



But British Petroleum uses green, signalling health, nature, and prosperity, with shades of yellow for optimism and happiness, and white for cleanliness and purity.

See also how the symbolism of these colors reflects how BP wants to be seen today? NOT as polluting and reaping windfall profits but rather as safe, clean, and worthwhile?

Colors are a powerful tool for conveying meaning in visual communications.  They are "subtext," or meaning below the surface, and connotations.  But the meaning is still there, serving the desired brand image of the company.

(The colors and meanings in the infographic are for Western culture.  In Eastern, culture, there are some differences.)

Next time you look at a favorite company's logo, check to see what meaning the color(s) convey.

The original post is at: 

https://iconicfox.com.au/2017/07/27/colour-in-branding-infographic/

Killjoys renewed, Dark Matter canceled - It's just business

Fans are scratching their heads because the Syfy Channel has announced the cancellation of Dark Matter, but the renewal of Killjoys.

This is a perfect example of the disconnect between how the fans see entertainment TV, and how the networks are actually run.

The simple truth is that every TV network, cable channel, and streaming service exists to make money.  Decisions about programming are always driven by considerations of profit.  Serving the audience with good programming is HOW they make money, but the business GOAL is making money, not serving the audience. It's just business.

I have been looking through the ratings information at tvseriesfinale.com and trying to understand the Syfy decision to renew one series but cancel the other.  Both were promoted in 2015 as the cable channel returning to its roots of space-based science fiction.  Both were outside acquisitions, not projects developed internally by Syfy.

Dark Matter averaged 614,000 viewers this season compared to 676,000 viewers last season. Killjoys averaged 627,000 viewers this season, down slightly from 644,000 last season. Industry-wide, declines of 25% are not unusual, as more and more people "cut the cord."

Those totals seem pretty close together, and it may seem bewildering that Syfy has renewed shows with considerably fewer total viewers, like The Expanse (562,000), Channel Zero (543,000), and Wynonna Erp (499,000).

But when we look at ratings from the 18-49 demographic, it makes a lot more sense. Advertisers love the 18-49 demographic because they are most likely to spend money. It's just business.

Killjoys captured an average of 17% of all television households in its timeslot this past season, which is down 5.56% from the previous season. Dark Matter got 15% of television households, down 12.67%, compared to the previous season.

Dark Matter WAS getting high viewership in online and time shifted viewing via DVRs and trackable (non-pirated) streaming views, sometimes doubling its audience or more, compared to the "live" cable feeds.  But such additional viewers may not be as valuable to the Syfy revenue stream.  

Syfy has renewed every current show getting 17% or higher of television households, and canceled every show with 16% or lower.  There is obviously some sort of threshold above which they consider a series to have profit potential, and below which there is not enough return on investment.  It's just business.

Television IS a business (broadcast, cable, and streaming). They spend money to develop and air series, or to purchase outside productions, and they need a return on investment from those expenditures. They make money by selling advertising. Advertisers spend their money on shows that will give them the best audience for their specific products, at appropriate cost. It's just business.

If the ratings of a show are too low, meaning not enough people watch, Syfy can't sell enough advertising in the program, because it's not a good enough deal for the advertisers. Or they have to charge less, meaning Syfy makes less money.  When Syfy makes less money, the investors also don't make as much money, and they consider firing the executives who didn't make enough money.  It's just business.

Syfy is owned by NBCUniversal, which also owns NBC, The Weather Channel, E!, Oxygen, Bravo, and the USA Network, among others.  Each one provides advertisers with a different demographic, not just in terms of age, but also in terms of interests that advertisers can match with their products.

Note that the network and advertiser analysis of ratings includes online viewing within a week of the cable broadcast (via legal DVR and streaming services).  But if your plan is to wait a few months and then binge-watch a series, your viewing is NOT part of the calculation about whether to renew or not.

Consumers generally to not understand these business considerations.  Cost versus revenue, and return on investment, however, are the primary considerations for which series are picked up and renewed, and which are not.  It's just business.

If you are interested in more about the Dark Matter decision, read this blog post from executive producer Joseph Mallozzi.

Tax cuts do not create new jobs

Federal tax reform is on the agenda for Congress again, and that means another round of the tried and true Republican goal of tax cuts for the rich (which never really works to help the economy).

The problem is that jobs are created when the current workforce of a company can't keep up with sales and operation of the business. Tax cuts are not what creates jobs.

Hiring employees you don't need is bad business. A smart manager wouldn't do this, because it increases expenses while not increasing profits.

Tax cuts mean more dividends or direct income for the investors, meaning more money for their lifestyles, and/or to invest in the stock of still more businesses.

If you really want to stimulate the economy, the way to do it is to increase middle and lower class consumer spending. Stimulating local spending percolates money up to the top of the economy as increased sales, in turn making more money for the rich AND requiring more jobs to fulfill demand. How do you do this?

• Increase minimum wage
• Reduce student loan debt
• Control against inflation
• Don't do stupid stuff that reduces consumer confidence
• There are plenty of other things, too.

(Let me note, by the way, that once a business HAS decided to expand, tax INCENTIVES are a great way to recruit new business to YOUR community, such as tax increment districts in which the company pays reduced taxes for a certain number of years, while their facility ramps up productivity. But that is different from "tax cuts for the rich.")

We have known for weeks that corporate tax cuts were on the conservative agenda for this winter, seeking more profits for owners and investors. It's certain rich people who push this through large campaign contributions and lobbying, like the Koch brothers, because it means more money in THEIR pockets.

Don't believe the rhetoric that if you are a conservative/Republican/patriot you MUST support tax cuts for the rich.  It doesn't stand up to critical thinking and doesn't benefit the economy much.

8+1 Life Hacks to help you Succeed in College

2020 edit:  I wrote this article in 2017, long before the COVID-19 pandemic.  Today, I add one more behavior that will lead to success - wear your masks faithfully, be meticulous about social distancing, and don't cheat on virus safety rules. Even if you only get a little bit sick, you could infect other people who are at much higher risk.

_____________________________

The school year is starting and every year, college freshmen have to figure out how to live their lives independently.  For many, it will be the first time they have been away from home for very long.

All college students need to figure out how to balance their school work, social lives, jobs, and sleep.  Some never figure it out by the time they graduate (or leave school without graduating). Some struggle and eventually figure it out.  A few are in great shape from the beginning.

College is about academic learning, certainly.  But it is also about learning life skills, like organization, work ethic, and how to balance multiple priorities and stay in control.

If you are a new college student or are close to someone who is, consider the following eight strong recommendations I make for new students.  They may seem obvious, but when you are newly on your own, sometimes they are harder to accomplish than you think.

1. Go to class and take notes

This seems like it would be most obvious, but many new college students are too casual about their classes.  Some only attend sporadically.

Don't fool yourself into thinking "nothing much is going on in that class, I can skip today."  

Class is where you learn the professional skills that will get you a good job down the road. But it is also where you make connections with teachers who will give you strong references (or not strong).   

If you often skip class, remember that a prospective employer is likely to ask me "is she dependable?"  I can't lie. 

2. Turn in assignments on time

This follows from point one.  In addition to the fact that your grade is likely to suffer from a late assignment, being late also speaks to your dependability, work ethic, and initiative.   

Late assignments are a big flashing red light over your head that says "do not hire me."

3. Do not procrastinate; be ahead of the curve

You don't learn much from hurry-up rush jobs on assignments.  You teacher has made the assignment because it will help you achieve the objectives of the class.   

Doing the minimum to get by on the theory of "a D still passes the course" means maybe you should not be in college. Why spend thousands of dollars that either you or your parents will have to pay back if you aren't ready to apply yourself to learning? 

The same advice also applies in everything else you do in college.  Take charge and be in control of all the various parts of your life.  If something seems beyond your power to control, don't allow yourself to be helpless - figure it out.  

4.  Don't be a drunk

To be blunt, most college students drink, including before they turn legal age. Some do pot or other drugs. But if you do, like everything else in this article, don't let it control your life. 

If alcohol, pot, or other controlled substances control you, rather than the other way around, you are tempting failure.

The typical college students would ignore me if I encouraged complete teetotaling, but that's not the real point.  The point is to be in control and don't let it take over your life. Which leads to the next point...

5. Ask for help when you need it

College and university campuses have all kinds of help available to you, from special meetings with your teachers, to tutors, to emotional counseling, and everything in-between. Absolutely do not be too proud or too nervous to ask for help if you need it, whatever the needed help is.  

6. Schedule your study time

Sure, college is complicated.  There is a lot going on.  But other people are not going to keeping you on target anymore.  YOU need to take control of your life and your schedule. 

I strongly recommend scheduling your study time, just like you schedule other things in your life.  For every hour you spend in the classroom, teachers are supposed to be assigning your TWO hours of homework.   

Make sure you set the time aside, and do not low ball how much time you really need.  If you DO get done early, so much the better, but don't skimp on study time. 

7. Work at making college friends

You are not going to be happy in college if you are isolated and have no friends.  If you make the effort to find friends and join in campus activities, it will help your school work and your overall learning (as long as you keep your social life in balance).  Hang out and do things with your roommate and dorm neighbors.  Join campus organizations to meet people with interests similar to yours. 

Sometimes taking these steps to make friends feels awkward and makes you a little nervous, but it is worth it. 

Plus, this is where boyfriends and girlfriends come from, which are part and parcel of college life for many students.  Such relationships are great, but remember the basic theme of keeping all parts of your life in balance.  Don't ignore the advice in this article, just because there is someone new in your life. 

8. Get enough sleep

Again, this seems obvious, but college students your age need at least seven hours of sleep a night, with a little more on weekends.   

Not getting enough sleep will tempt you to violate all of the other recommendations above. Plus you will have higher stress, more chance of mental health issues, and you will generally be more miserable. 

Like all of the other points above, take charge of your sleep schedule and remain in control.

As I said, these things may all be obvious, but each semester I have students who stop coming to class, fail to turn assignments, or otherwise get their lives off track. Some get their act together and get back on track.  Some don't.

It's true that college is a pretty desirable lifestyle, particularly if you don't worry about classwork. You have more independence than ever before and your lodging and food (most of it) are pre-paid.

But also remember that you are making decisions that will have consequences for years to come.  Be proactive and make them smart decisions.

Five things "Digital Natives" need in Educational Technology

Today's younger generation is considered to be "digital natives" because they have
grown up with Internet/mobile technology and are highly comfortable with it.

But what are the implications of that? Should educators really treat them differently?

According to this story, a recent academic study suggests that today's students are no better at information skills simply because they grew up in the digital era. It also finds evidence that “digital natives” are no better at multitasking than other age cohorts.

So, as a teacher, I wonder what this says about instructional technology (and here I am talking about systems that go beyond PPT slides and playing YouTube videos in class).

There is a lot of research that shows that, in general, students like using technology for schoolwork.  In part, this is because they are already used to technology, and in part because it tends to lead classes away from boring lecture-memorization methodologies.

But I teach specialized technology, used for broadcasting.  Many of my students are great users of the technology, but......

If there is a problem, many of them are stymied. Some of them cannot even explain what the problem is sufficiently for me to understand it, without going to look for myself (and then I can often solve the problem in two minutes).

Then there's the recurring problem of the students who save a file, and then cannot come back and find it again, because of lack of understanding of file folder structure. That should not be college-level curriculum!

So my take is that today's generation of students is sophisticated in USE of technology, but not necessarily in UNDERSTANDING how the technology works.

Again -- what are the implications?

1. The technology used needs to be highly intuitive do it doesn't NEED figuring out.
2. Students need ample instruction in how to use it (called "induction training"). As long as it is confucing or hard to use, it will reduce their motivation.
3. Teachers need to use scaffolding -- giving high levels of technology support early, but gradually lessening the support to encourage students to become more independent and able to solve problems.
4. As much as possible, the technology needs to be cross-platform, i.e. suitable tfor desktop computers, laptops, and smartphones. Of course, this is not always possible.  My broadcasting assignments need to be done with professional hardware and software to be effective, not Garage Band. But for example, our school's Learning Management System (the only system allowed for online instruction) is just finally being updated this year to be friendly to mobile devices.
5. Teachers need to guard against mobile devices as distractions in class.  They can add to the classroom experience, such as for quick research during class discussion. But whenever a student blanks a screen or minimizes a window when the teacher walks up, you can bet that the device has been a distraction, not an learning aid.  This can be challenging because students resent being told they cannot text message during class, etc.  

I think that my particular Electronic Media program does a pretty good job of teaching the technology in a way that is not too intimidating and builds complexity step-by-step in reasonable increments.  And we'll need to, because we have new hardware and software we'll need to start using the first week.

Guerrilla Tactics for Corporate Tax Cuts

From The Intercept

The billionaire Koch brothers have plans to plant questions and comments at August congressional recess town hall meetings to make it appear that there is a grassroots demand for lower corporate taxes.

That's according to a confidential plan obtained by The Intercept, reported in this story. (The Intercept is the site that released Edward Snowden's documents about NSA hacking.)

Such guerrilla tactics are not new in politics. Over the years, there have been plenty of examples of paid rally attendees and planted questions -- more times than you can count, all across the political spectrum.

Sometimes the politician (or staff) does it, to make the politician look good or get a foot in the door for a prepared answer. Sometimes it really is to persuade the politician. But sometimes the goal is to allow the politician to JUSTIFY voting the way certain lobbyists and campaign contributors want.

"Every place I went this August, people were encouraging me to support cutting corporate taxes."

See how this helps justify voting a certain way?

But it's also hard to NOT see this underground campaign in the context of "back home" political events earlier this spring, in which activists hammered away on progressive social causes -- so much so that some Republicans were scared away from holding public events at all.

Don't get me wrong -- most politicians are honest, hard working, and devoted to serving their constituents. But they can also become seduced by power.  If you want to serve your constituents, you need more and more power, such as better subcommittee and committee assignments. To get those, you need to be seen as supporting the party leadership. And that means voting for litmus test legislation, like repealing the Affordable Care Act.

If you're going to vote on a controversial bill like that, it helps to have a strong rationale for WHY you voted the way you do. And that's where the guerrilla questions and comments at public events come in. When "constituent" questions go the way the politician wants, it's great. When they go a different direction, the politician resorts to avoidance.

To counter this kind of tactic, advocates for the other side need to keep turning out in force and keep countering the guerrilla operatives.

What's this blog really about?

August is when school starts again for me, and the end of July seems like a reasonable time to reflect on the status and goals of my blog.

As it turns out, I have been making a lot of posts about politics recently, but that is not my MAIN intent with this blog.  My intent is to post as an observer -- of life and culture and things that interest me.

Actions = Ethics

Photo by Gage Skidmore
via Wikimedia.

As the Donald Trump Junior scandal unfolds, what he INTENDED to do is more important than what he ACTUALLY did.

He attended a meeting that he had been told specifically was part of a Russian effort to influence the election.

What does this say about his morality and values? A lot.

What most people don't understand about Social Media

We've seen several reports recently of popular social media sites that are struggling to be profitable, like Twitter and Tumblr.

Profit? Most social media users see their accounts as a free service.  What's going on?

Five Myths about Higher Education

©  2014 Michael Marek

Reading this article made think about myths about how education works.

Here are five myths that too many people believe about education, and particularly higher education.

Repopulate the Species?

My patience has been rewarded and I found the first seedlings today of wild columbine plants I am attempting to grow from seeds I collected last fall.

Why would I do that when columbine seeds can be found in almost any display of flower garden seeds?

What Makes a GOOD Teacher

What does it mean to be a "good teacher"?

It's not what a lot of people think.