albertmcwilliams's posterous

a bit iffy at times, but generally a good idea

Smart folks in Ann Arbor crash their cars into stuff, blame City Council

Awhile back Ann Arbor City Council passed a "motorists must stop for pedestrians in crosswalk" law. No big deal right. It's already a state law, and nearly every pedestrian-heavy downtown in Southeast Michigan has an enhanced enforcement of that law in some way.

Well, it is a big deal apparently.
First, let me say that I don't care which way this particular ordinance goes. Why? Because it's not a big deal. I've been hit by cars, a lot, and I still don't think it's a big deal. The problem is why people are freaking out about it - and yes, they are losing their minds.

Ann Arbor Dot Com (it's our "newspaper") has been following the controversy and people are outraged at the increased number of rear-end accidents due to cars stopped for pedestrians. As in, people are super pissed at City Council because they crashed their car into something. These are adults, mind you. This is Ann Arbor; one of the most educated cities in the U.S. Yet, somehow 75% of the commenters on that article think that it's City Council's fault that they crashed their car into another car.

Another car, may I remind you, that was stopped for a pedestrian. If a driver didn't see a car stopped in the middle of the road, would that driver have seen a pedestrian? I guess I'm glad that another car was there to run interference.

One driver was so pissed at City Council for driving his car into the rear-end of another car while he was driving, that he actually brought a piece of his damaged car to City Council.

The sad part of all of this is that as City Council members face re-election this week, this will be a hot issue (bizarre, I know, I'll explain below), and it's even possible that council members will be replaced because they voted to make people crash their cars that they're driving while they're driving them. The ordinance will likely be repealed if not by new council-folks, then by scared-barely-made-it-back council folks.


This is sad because that's politics these days. Ann Arbor likes to think that it's some bastion of progressive thought; a place where enlightenment reigns supreme. In reality, all it took to turn the wise people of this city into giant, selfish, babies was a little road rage.

The psychology is simple. When someone makes a mistake on the road, they get pissed and flip the bird at the person who made a brilliant maneuver to avoid them causing an accident. This is a simple human reaction, for simple humans. When a person makes a mistake, especially one that results in a burst of adrenaline, like an accident, or near-miss on the expressway, their brain begins functioning on reflex. It's the most primitive part of the brain and its only job is protection. It protects you from physical and mental danger. It covers  the later part by telling the larger, smarter, more mature part of your brain that it's not your fault.

Teachers will know what I'm talking about here. Have you ever had to tell a parent their kid was a jerk? How many times has a parent been angry at you because their kid ate all the paste? It's the teacher's fault right? Wrong.

Just like it's not Ann Arbor's fault that some people crashed their cars into other cars. For those of you who are pissed about this ordinance and reading here because you like to read things that make you angry, allow me to offer some free therapy.
When things are stopped in the middle of the road, don't run into them. Ever.

Ordinance or not, this is a wild and crazy world with sharp pointy things and stuff in places it doesn't belong. Don't hit that stuff with your car. You can do this by paying attention and looking where you're going - almost all the time.

Some of you have requested that flashing lights would help you not run into stuff on the road. You know, similar to the red flashing lights on the backs of the cars you ran into.

Good people of Ann Arbor, I ask you this one favor: Look where you're going, and if you're caught off guard, grow the fuck up and take responsibility for it.

Givens Head

In the last few years I've noticed a drastic increase in the number of statements issued as "given." Things that are tossed around as facts, reality, and unquestionable truth. There have always been givens, but the sheer number of things companies, marketers, rely on these days without any notion where the given even originated is astonishing.

The rapid Given Explosion is likely due to a combination of two giant changes happening all at once. First, the economy asploded and left everyone in the lurch. Sales are down. Money is tight. Companies need answers! They need something to pin the decline on (when in reality it could simply be a general decline). That happened at the same time that we got all these new channels of communication, whether it's social networking websites, or email blasts, or twatters, or flickrs, or any number of words with missing vowels. 

So, at the moment companies were presented with vaporizing sales without explanation, a plausible explanation in the form of new media appeared  also as if from nowhere. One mass mistake of confusing correlation with causation and we've been left with a base of "givens" that, well, aren't (rather, they might be, but who knows, and many signs point to "not.").

Today in AdAge there's an article about Ford and Twitter. that is rife with these "givens," and included the one big one that all others are based on. The one that I hear every day, and it's exceptionally poignant because, well, it's about me.

Ms. Connelly added that millennials don't want to be talked at by a brand but instead want to be part of the conversation. "Understanding their priorities helps us market to them, so that we're giving a message that is relevant to them."

"Millennials don't want to be talked at by a brand but instead want to be part of the conversation."

Is that true? We've all heard it so much that we assume it's true. It sounds logical. The statement itself has certainly been marketed efficiently as people are definitely buying it. Has this statement taken advantage of the Dunkin' Donuts Effect? Remember when they just said they had the best coffee, and even though you never tried it, you found yourself talking about how you heard their coffee was awesome having forgotten that you originally heard it from them? 

The problem is Dunkin' Donuts coffee really isn't all that great. Is the idea that Millennials want to be part of the conversation something that Social Media Marketing folks started saying so much that now everyone says it forgetting that they originally heard it from some Social Media douchebag(uette)?

Quite honestly, I've seen much more evidence to the contrary than supporting. First and foremost, I'm a Millenial (though barely). I assure you, Pizza Hut, Ford, Pepsi, and Right Guard, I do not want to talk to you. Oh hey, Apple, company who I love, do you want to chat? You don't? Good, I don't either. I want to buy your awesome product. I want to tell my friends about your product. I do not want to talk to you about it. You know who wants to talk to brands? My grandmother. She's bored. I have friends coming over to drink tequila out of my globe-bar.

Perhaps that's just me?

 Okay, Apple is a good example. As they pass Exxon Mobile for the worlds most valuable company, and having gone from near-oblivion to that point during the time-period in question, it would be hard to argue that they are not the model for success when marketing to Millennials. Apple doesn't have a twitter, or a facebook page. What's more is that Apple is the definition of a closed company. If they had a motto about making customers part of the conversation it would be, "fuck you, we're Apple, we make an awesome product." Apple is criticized by all the folks "in the know" every time they make another closed, "fuck you, we're awesome," product or system... then they charge twice what anyone else does and sell a billion of them and become the world's most valuable company. In the know, indeed.

Back to Ford; later in the article they posit another given that "millennials don't view cars as a status symbol like the boomers did." Is that true? How do we know? Perhaps they just don't view Fords as the status symbol like Boomers did... and that's the real problem.

I don't have all the answers to these questions, but taking so many givens means you're not asking the questions in the first place.

Blackberry Riots: You're Missing the Point

Like many Americans, sitting over here on my fat, spoiled ass, I've been following the riots in Britain. When they first began lighting thing on fire I assumed that there must be some serious complaints with the state of affairs in Merry Ol'. Then, I watched this video on the BBC where two, I believe the term is "tarts," drink Rosé and complain about rich people.

Over the image of shops engulfed in a massive conflagration the reporter asks these young women, "why do this to local people, why do this where you live" to which they respond, "they're the business owners, the rich people. That's why all of this has happened, because of the rich people."

Something wasn't clicking. They're drinking all day, talking about how fun it is, stealing Rosé... Their gripes are with "rich people" and "the government." Not a specific gripe, mind you. They're not saying "the government keeps making my relatives disappear into Gulags" or "rich peoples' children do not have to go fight in the civil war, but mine do," but simply, "rich people," and "the government."

Later this week stories are emerging about what a large role Blackberry instant messaging (BBM) played in the riots, helping them spread quickly and organize looters (organization? looting? Sid Viscous is turning in his grave). What appears to be missing from this analysis is that the rioters had Blackberrys.

As in, these rioters who claim to be sticking it to the rich people by lighting their shops on fire and stealing their Rosé, have $400 smart phones and $100/mo data plans. I wonder what they think rich is, if not having a Blackberry? Does the Dole in Britain pass out iPods with your foodstamps? Are you allowed to request that your beef be organic from the government food line?

Smartphones are the definition of luxury. Welcome to the suburban middle-class riots of 2011, where folks are just fed-up with these fascists making them pay for flat screen TVs and fine wine.

Perhaps I should be thanking the British rioters for making us Americans not the spoiled brats of the world for once... at least for a week or two.

"Wul"

I would like to request removal from lexicon, "wul." 

"Wul," is the manifestation of "well" that appears immediately before someone says something tremendously whiney. "Wul" appears before excuses for why something terribly easy wasn't done, or can't be done, or shouldn't be done.

Generally, between the "wul" and the whine, a bit of air escapes to produce - it's not an actual grunt - but more like the sound puppies make when they're sniffing around for some sweet, sweet dog-milk. Like, life is just soooo hard. 

You've heard it:

"Wul, hehf, there wasn't parking so I'll just take it over tomorrow."

"Wul, hehf, I didn't see anything that said, don't put the gasoline in a bucket."

"Wul, hehf, I didn't have any stamps."

"Wul, hehf, I couldn't email him because my chair was broken."

When I hear a wul-ism, I wonder about past generations. Did they have a "wul?" Is it just our generation that is so pathetically spoiled? Has the "everybody gets a medal" idea produced a generation of folks who know that if they find a reason why they can't, someone else will come along and do it for them? What if Churchill was all, "Wul, hehf, he's already got France."

Also, I wonder how the rest of these Wullers lives go? How do they tie their shoes? How do they feed themselves? Do they just sit at the table with a fork in their hand until someone finds them, having starved to death, with a note that says, 

"Wul, hehf, the hot dogs were frozen."

Facebook is a $20 Billion night club.

As Facebook's "valuation" (a word that I always put in quotes) rose higher and higher, and people were talking about tens of billions of dollars, my thought has always been that it's not protectable. Facebook doesn't own your vegas pictures; they don't control where you stalk that girl you met last night, and they have no way of stocking whether or not that popular jock from high school is fat n' bald now.

I pled my case that Facebook would go the way of Friendster and MySpace, but people wouldn't hear it - those were "also-rans" and did so much wrong. Honestly, it was beginning to look like I was wrong. It happens (sometimes). Then, Google+ launched and I finally have the analogy I was looking for - night clubs.

Facebook, MySpace and Google+ are simply environments for socializing. That's it. They build a room, put some stuff in it that you like, and then invite you to come hang out with your friends and meet chicks. That's what a nightclub is too. Facebook is just a nightclub. It's a huge nightclub, but just a nightclub and anyone investing in it should look at it as such.

Now, ask someone who has built successful night clubs what the shelf-life is. How long is a specific club still the place to be? Two years? Five? Inevitably, no matter how cool the club is, or how loose the women, something new opens up and the kids move on.

So, would you buy a night club for $20 Billion?