Even though I’ll be starting a new job soon, yesterday I had to go to EDD to attend a presentation that explains all the features of their website and how to take advantage of the services they have for the recently jobless. I have to say that I’ll probably keep using the EDD website to keep my resume updated because there’s not only good information and tips on there, but the Department of Labor has a couple of really good job seeking sites that are easy to use and had job notices that I didn’t see on LinkedIn or Craigslist.  So, if you’re looking for another job, or are unemployed, make sure you really dig into the EDD’s website and join a job club to network — because who you know is about 90% of getting in the door.

Okay, that’s the practical advice from me based on what I learned.  But there are other things that struck me about yesterday’s presentation — which dovetails into some larger views of the labor market and the differences in generations. I’ll start with the most striking  observation that’s not scientific at all:

Everyone in the EDD conference room was over 40.  Everyone.

The Larger Picture

Like I said, what I saw was not based on a larger dataset, but rather just an observation. Indeed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics tells a different story about workers over 40:

Unemployment rates. CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE So you can read the tables.

The most obvious is that teenagers have a high unemployment rate.  Well, that’s to be expected since they are required to be in school for nine months of the year. If you’re in the 20-25 year old bracket, the rate is high, too. Part of that could be deferred full-time employment because of attending school.  You’ll notice the rate drops significantly at 25 years of age — spikes up a bit between 25-34 — and then trends down after that to 5.7-6% in age groups older than 34.  Now, the people who show up in these BLS stats are those who qualify for some kind of Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefit and have a applied for it. The actual number of unemployed people is much higher than the statistics suggest, since many people have exhausted their benefits, never qualified for them in the first place, or have stopped looking for work and have fallen off the radar.  The benefit in California, by the way, has a range from $40 a week to $450 a week, and the amount you gets depends on how much you made at your job.

But…

Because of the sequester (you know, the mandatory reduction in government spending and the end of the Bush-era tax cuts — because Congress couldn’t do their job and come to an agreement on a budget), UI benefits have been reduced by 17.69%.  So, if you were getting a UI benefit check for $450 a week, it’s now $371. If it was hard to live off of $450 a week, now it’s even harder live because your benefit has been cut by almost 18%!  Despite Mitt Romney’s 47% talk about people on government help, the UI benefit and not a handout.  You — yes, you — pay into UI benefits when you’re working and it’s an insurance policy that’s designed to cushion the blow of losing a job.  It’s not a replacement for lost wages — which is pretty frickin’ obvious to anyone who just read this paragraph — but it does help keep some folks from being homeless soon after losing a job.

The “Over 40 Club”

While standing in line to prove that I had an active resume on CalJobs at the EDD office, I spoke to a couple of people and their stories of why they were “let go” were surprisingly similar.  Age + salary = liability to the company.  You see, as we age, our total compensation package that includes benefits like health insurance go up.  Employers and employees see it every year during open enrollment when the HR rep comes in with the news that insurance rates will rise.  So, unless you do a job that’s essential to the health of a company and there are very few candidates who can do your job cheaper than you (no matter how old your are), you’re vulnerable to a lay off.

One very nice woman I chatted with told me that she was laid off from the company she worked for because of her age.  Personally, I couldn’t peg her age, because she didn’t look that much older than me.  She said that she was a grandmother (a young one at that), and when they let her go, they replaced her with someone who was younger and childless (and, needless to say, grandchildless).  She was okay with the separation because her job required her to go to environmentally dodgy places and she was concerned about her health.  So for her, she was grateful to be moving on from that job.  Also, her husband made “good money” working as a contractor for Genentech.  However, even that job left them feeling insecure.  She said that her husband applied for full-time/regular employee positions at the company only to be passed over for younger workers.  His job function is pretty integral to Genentech, but they won’t bring him on a regular employee.  She told me that it was “an age thing” and sort of rolled her eyes at the business logic of it all.

Another member of the “Over 40 Club” was older than those in attendance.  He was probably in his early 60s and had worked for a company for about 20 years when they showed him the door. He was in a different boat because he hadn’t updated his skills because the company didn’t require it for him to do his job.  Now he was faced with the prospect of having go through “retraining” to find another job — which is going to be difficult to get because of his age.  Employers want them “young and cheap” and if someone with gray hair walks in the door, 9 times out of 10, it’s game over for that candidate. The guy running the presentation at EDD didn’t say that, but did remind everyone that “entrances and exits” are what people remember.  In other words, it doesn’t matter all that much if you look great on paper, people will size you up based on how you look when you walk in the door, and how you act as you’re leaving the interview.  I gotta hand it to the guy who lost his job after 20 years. He didn’t give up.  Rather, he made notes on all the EDD services that applied to him and generally kept an upbeat demeanor.

The rest of the “Over 40 Club?” Well, I didn’t speak to any of them, but I could see from the expressions on their faces that many were bored, embarrassed, pissed off, and enthusiastic. A range of emotions, to be sure — but none that I haven’t experience during my time being jobless.  For many of those in the “Over 40 Club” it’s going to be a slog to find another job.  Unless one is well-connected, has skills that are in demand, and can “pass” for a younger employee (Oh, that ageist thing really sucks), the amount of time it’s going to take to land another gig is about six months.  This figure comes from a LinkedIn group where those who are “older” workers told tales of how long it took them to find work after being laid off.

The takeaway:

• Get your UI benefit paperwork completed the day you get laid off.
• Join a networking club right away.
• Use EDD’s site to revise your resume, research companies, take self-assessments, and find out about workshops.
• Tell people you are looking for work — and remind them often.
• This one involves risk, but it might work:  Start a company with your friends and colleagues who may be tired of working for The Man. Collectively, you have more experience than younger workers who are doing the same — and often failing.

Generational Attitudes And Workers

Time magazine had a recent cover story on Millennials that highlighted this “Me Me Me” generation (born between 1983-2000) who are, yes, narcissistic, coddled by their parents, rewarded for mundane things (“Every kid gets a trophy!”), and have an inflated sense of entitlement.

My kid’s generation?

Yes, older people will forever complain about “youth,” but the fascinating part of the article was that while these kids are obsessed with themselves, they are also incredibly nice and don’t feel they need to rebel against authority (Why bother?  They are friends with their parents on Facebook — and have no real problem with it).  Because of this new “flat” environment where hierarchy is almost erased, people in this generation feel it’s okay to contact the CEO of a company to tell them why they should be hired.  Forget “Apply Online” or HR, just go right to the source. I think that’s an admirable trait and shows a lot of moxie. It means the traditional obstacles that have been in place are ignored in favor of just going for the brass ring — no matter if you’re qualified or not.  Like I said, this shows a lot of moxie and leadership qualities. However, there’s a downside to this for employers.  This generation is made up of people who are not loyal to a company — which can make them hard to control with traditional carrot and stick methods.  They will only stay at a job for as long as it hold their interest, and they are more apt to take a chance and start a company with their friends than bother with working for someone else.

My generation…a bunch of slackers?

In 1990, Time ran this cover of basically my generation (1964-1982). Did I recognize myself in the description and cover photo?  In a way, yes.  There was a kind of “Lost Generation” quality to me and my cohorts back then.  Not everyone I knew fit this category (how could they?), but yes, I wore a ton of black, kind of felt directionless at times, and was also a bit annoyed by the glorification of a certain group of Boomers for whom “The ’60s” where their defining moment.  Me?  I buried myself in the Gen X culture of alternative rock, more meaningful career choices (academics), and wanted a better quality of life than accumulating wealth.  What did that attitude do for me in terms of a career?  Well, I went headlong into academics because it was something I was very interested in, and, as far as career choices go, there were supposed to be many opportunities for me when I got my PhD.  Sounded good.  I wouldn’t make millions of dollars, I wouldn’t change the world, but I would live a life of the mind and be compensated in a manner that I could live a comfortable life.  Well, through a combination of bad luck and bad timing, the economy tanked, there was an oversupply of PhDs, and colleges weren’t filling many full-time positions.  I had to adjust — and adjust quickly to find other means of employment.

What kind of worker did this new economy make me?  Flexible, practical, and one who put aside ego in favor of making a living.  I’m not thrilled about the alternate jobs I’ve taken, but I did what I had to do to scratch out a living. Unlike some, I don’t feel entitled, nor am I obsessed with myself (much).  And that “laid back” attitude Time magazine ascribes to my generation?  Well, it could be a shield against abrupt change.  Remember: it was my generation that experienced deep changes in the family structure that was, at times, jarring.  Plus, with an increase in the divorce rate, the growth of single parents, and the need for both parents to be working, mine was a generation that had to kind of take care of themselves — which is probably why many of us overcompensate with our kids (i.e., the Millennials) and want to be connected to them as much as we can be.

So, comparing each generation in terms of their work ethic is tricky because we don’t all fit into neat little boxes.  I’m no expert, but based on my experience and what I’ve read, my takeaway on Gen X and Millennials are as follows:

• Gen X:  Practical, detached, responsible, and are late bloomers.
• Millennials: Practical, egalitarian, entitled, friendly, and go after what they want.

So, if you find yourself unemployed, know that there’s more going on than what’s happening on “Planet Me.”  We don’t live in a bubble, but the connections and forces that pull and push us along this life course are often invisible to us.  Stepping back to find larger connections is instructive in helping to frame your job search and to know what kind of culture you’re facing as you move into the next phase of your career.

I suppose when I’m an old man, I’ll be able to sit my grandkids on my lap and tell them about how the Great Recession affected me in a cranky old man voice.  I’ll be sure to tell them about the first round of unemployment in 2008 when, after working for the same company for 10 years, I got laid off one day before my work anniversary.  Yeah. That was truly special.  Then, I’ll have to remember that after seven months of unemployment (with only one interview and no offers), the very same company called and hired me back to run their promotions and marketing department.  Not really the best fit in terms of interest (from me), but I took to the job, turned the department around, hired some very capable people, and had some good promotional campaigns that helped increase the radio station’s visibility in the community.  Plus I did a bunch of other jobs that I wasn’t compensated for (ain’t that the case with most jobs these days?) that went way beyond my job description — but fell under the category of “other tasks assigned by the manager.”  Hey, it was a job, I did it well, learned some new skills, and was a reliable and loyal employee. Plus, I “made it” to management — which can be a unique ring of hell at times.

And then after three years and a few months…

I took a couple of days off for my birthday, came in on Monday morning to the news that I was being laid off (The owners of this company have impeccable timing, don’t they?) So, what was the reason this time?  Same reason as 2008:  budget cutting due to a decrease in revenue.  If you think because you’ve “made it” to management means you’ll be able to weather the storms of lay offs a little easier, think again.  For me, the combination of age, salary, and benefits meant that they found someone younger and cheaper to do my job.

Sounds like age discrimination, huh. It is.

Well, after that ended, I picked up some contract work at a production company directing a TV show (I wrote about this in another post).  That was a kind of hit and miss thing.  Lots of big talk by the CEO about “sacrificing now for bigger budgets and paychecks in the future,” plans to take the show national, and blah, blah, blah.  I was partly hopeful, but mostly skeptical that he could realize his goals because of his inherent cheapness and inability to fully understand what it takes to produce a TV show for broadcast.  Nevertheless, the money wasn’t bad, I was able to sharpen my multimedia skills, and write some shows that were informative and well-received.  The plug got pulled on my show because more money was going out than coming in.  Why?  Well basically, they produced a full season of shows before they got sponsors.  I wasn’t on the sales and marketing side of this “Gonna take over the world” media company, but even I knew that in Hollywood they put all their money into a pilot before moving ahead with a full series.   If you don’t get picked up, at least the initial investment in the pilot won’t bankrupt your company.  Not the genius behind this company, though.  He was a big believer in “If we make it, they will come flocking with bags of cash”

Um. Nope.

Well, after that debacle, I was back to hitting the proverbial bricks.  After months of applying to the black hole known as “Apply Online,” shaking down connections on LinkedIn to get my resume in front of hiring managers, I finally tried “Plan C.”  Plan C was simple:  see if I could get work doing traffic and news reporting again.  I was good at it when that was my job years ago, and I still had contacts in the radio industry.  So, because I had internal folks willing to recommend me, the hiring manager called and asked if I was interested in working for them.  There was no hesitation on my part.  I said “Absolutely.  Thank you for the opportunity!” Starting next week, I start training to work for Total Traffic Network in San Francisco.  This is also a union job, so now I’ll finally be a member of SAG-AFTRA. Who knows?  Maybe I can get some TV work out of it, too.

Yes, it will be good to be working again. But what have I learned about falling in and out of work in the last year? Well, let me bullet this out for ease of reading:

• Keep your networks fresh!  Don’t connect with people you already work with. They can’t help you get a job if you’re laid off.  They are trying to hang on to theirs. Connect with people who are out of your immediate circles of friends and co-workers. If you can, connect with them while employed and see if there’s anything you can offer them.
• If you have to “apply online” for a job, use LinkedIn to see if you are connected to anyone at the company you’re interested in. If you are, reach out to them first. It’s not a guarantee that’ll you’ll get an interview, but it’s a better method than going through the front door — where if you don’t have at least 80% of what the company is looking for, your resume will end up in a black hole.
• Let people know that you’re looking for work — and tell them what you’re looking for.  If you don’t know, take time to find out what you want to do.  Don’t say “I’ll do anything.” If you do, it’s not likely that your connections will help you. If you see a job notice that looks like a good fit with your skills and interests, tell people this is what you want to do.
• Looking for work should not be a full-time job.  Make it a part-time job — because making it a full-time job will drive you crazy.
• Do things for yourself that are fun.  I bike ride because it gets me out of the house and I generally feel good after a ride.
• Keep you skills sharp by working for free or for very little money. I write for Popdose and host and produce a video series for Truthout because I want to keep my writing and interviewing chops fresh.  Plus, it fills up my week with projects that are infinitely more interesting than writing cover letters or revising my resume.
• Lastly, you will get depressed.  You will feel like “I’ll never work again.”  You will get resentful of others who seem to coast from job to job without experiencing what it’s like to be unemployed.  It will be incredibly difficult, but you must push those feelings away.  For me, the best way to get rid of those negative emotions is to exercise.  The post-workout rush I get is better than any kind of drink, drug, or box of chocolates.

So there ’tis.  The Great Recession taught me that you have to be a very flexible worker who shouldn’t stop learning new skills.  It’s also taught me that you shouldn’t get comfortable with a company.  Businesses are always evaluating ways they can increase efficiencies (i.e., how to save money), and they will lay you off if it helps them balance the bottom line.  They are not going to change, but you as an employee will have to shift your mindset to be as calculating as they are.  Loyalty is rarely rewarded anymore, so don’t think that’s a virtue.  Certainly, do the best job you can for the company you’re working for, learn new marketable skills, but build a plan like businesses do.  Yes, you will make friends at these companies, but the corporation is not your friend — nor is it your enemy. It’s a place where you offer your skills and talent in exchange for money and other benefits. That’s the simple transaction.  When your skills and talent are available for less money, a company will go the cheaper route if it makes economic sense.  The company doesn’t care that you have a mortgage, kids to feed, a car payment, and all those other things that go along with life. The company cares mostly about profit, leverage, and market share. That’s why you shouldn’t care about leaving a company for a better opportunity if you have one. You need to make money, too.  You and your family depend on it.

Don’t get drawn into an emotional situation. If your boss pleads, begs and offers you more money, decide if it makes economic sense to you.  In other words, is he or she offering you a good deal? Or is this offer just a stop-gap to keep you until they can hire someone cheaper?  At bottom, though, The Great Recession taught me that I have to think like the people who run a company. Now doing so won’t win you or me any loyalty points, but it may impart knowledge that could lead more control over one’s career.

The Enterprise and its crew get pretty beat up this time out…

When J.J. Abrams took the helm and rebooted the ailing Star Trek franchise in 2009, it was a ballsy move.  I mean, here’s an iconic show that’s been part of popular culture for over 40 years, and Abrams figured he could give the Trek narrative a much-needed shot in the arm.  When I saw the trailer for Abrams’ version of Star Trek in 2008 I loved the serious tone and how wonderful it looked.  Sure, it was impossible not to make comparisons to the characters that I grew up watching on afternoon TV, but I was I was guardedly intrigued by what Abrams was trying to do. Certainly, the new actors who would be playing these roles had enormous shoes to fill. And even though I was intrigued by this film, a certain skepticism started to creep in.  I had visions of when I saw Tim Burton’s version of Planet of the Apes – and being so very, very disappointed. I hoped the same thing wouldn’t happen with J.J. Abrams’ version of Star Trek.

And then…

I saw Abrams’ movie and was extremely pleased by what he wrought on-screen. The characters had energy, passion, and played their roles without any kind of irony.  The story was an “origin” narrative that was pleasing since we know very little of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the gang before they became the bridge crew of The Enterprise — well, at least from the TV show and the movies.  Plus, the action was very intense and I wasn’t sure where the story was going.  That made the movie refreshing for me.

Other novel flourishes included:  Christopher Pike — the Enterprise’s captain before James Kirk — was alive and well and commanding the ship. Huh?  Wait. These weren’t just flourishes, this was a whole new story — and as we later found out, a story that took place in an alternate reality.  That’s right.  We got Star Trek’s quantum twins — who sort of looked Kirk, et al, kind of acted like them, but were going through their lives quite differently than what we watched on TV all those years ago.  You know what, though?  The movie worked.  It was a thrilling ride and Abrams was able to recreate beloved characters that the audience cared about.  That’s no easy feat.

Well, when you have success with one film, it’s only a matter of time before Hollywood asks you to do a sequel.  And so it goes with Star Trek Into Darkness — the second film from the newly rebooted series.  The first major part of the story is fairly straightforward:  London and San Francisco are attacked “from within” by an ally who went rogue.  Many people die because of his actions, but why did he attack his fellow earthlings — and escape to Kronos, the Klingon home planet?  That’s the set-up, and Kirk and the crew have to go on a man hunt to kill or capture this terrorist who, it seems, has bigger plans to wreak havoc upon epicenter of The United Federation of Planets.

Without giving away the details of Act II, suffice it to say that Abrams did what I hoped he wouldn’t do with these movies:  he tread into story lines that audiences have seen before.  What this did was take away from the originality of the rebooted film series and distracted me  because I was making mental comparisons in my head to the well-known narrative and found the rest of the experience disappointing. The movie starts with an action-packed prologue and intriguing Act I — but Acts II and III were let downs. Not enough though that I can’t recommend the film, but given the way Abrams and his crew from LOST (so many familiar names show up in the credits to Star Trek Into Darkness) have done creative things with well-known genres, it was surprising that he would allow this film to go down a road we’ve been before.  I can only hope that going forward, Abrams (or the screenwriters who pen the next film), will ditch the parallels and let the characters in this Star Trek universe have their own adventures and, as the captains of various starships have said throughout the series, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

Tom Cruise’s latest movie is one that combines science fiction themes and plot points from movies like Blade Runner, The Matrix,  Planet of the Apes, and a hodgepodge of other, better made, films into one package.  And if I may cut right to the chase:  my initial takeaway is that Oblivion is a very nice looking, but only mildly entertaining film.

Set in the year 2077, the film begins in the aftermath of an alien/earthling war that resulted in the aliens losing, and Earth’s inhabitants losing even bigger.  Because the aliens destroyed most of our moon, the Earth was subjected to massive environmental and seismic changes that destroyed almost all the habitable land.  Add to that the human’s use of nuclear weapons to “win” the war, and you have a planet that’s pretty much shot to hell.

Where are all the humans?  Well, Jack (Cruise)  tells us that most are living in a huge space station called the “Tet” but will all eventually all move to Titan — one of the moons of Saturn.  Why is he still on Earth? His job is “drone maintenance” — which basically means that he’s the guy who repairs the robotic flying drones that protect these huge turbines that are converting sea water into fuel for the Tet.  Why do they need protection?  Well, that’s because the aliens who attacked Earth are still on the planet trying to destroy these turbines and salvage their parts (they call the aliens “Scavs” in the movie — which is short for scavenger.)

Okay, so that’s the set up.  The conflict comes when Jack is captured by the Scavs (who are really human) and is asked to send one of the drones to the Tet and blow it up.  Add to that Jack’s frequent dreams about a woman he meets on top of the Empire State Building (before the alien attack) and you have something cooking that’s very different from what we’re told at the outset.

I won’t give away any of the “secrets” if you want to see the film, but one thing I noticed is that the filmmaker, Joseph Kosinski, had a challenge on his hands:  how to balance a Tom Cruise film (which, at this point in his career, is mostly about action) with more thoughtful elements that are central to good science fiction movie making.  Sure, you have to have fights with other people involving guns, fights with the drones in space ships, and fights with…Jack’s inner turmoil, but you also have a plot where “things aren’t what they seem to be.”  So, there’s a sleight of hand that is being played. But if you’re a fan of the science fiction drama, chances are you’ll be two to three steps ahead of the story as you’re watching the action unfold on the screen. That’s not to say that it’s a poorly told tale.  Rather, the plot (Well, really a series of plots stitched together) is one we’ve seen in other films.

Is it worth seeing?  If you like a movie theater experience, you may enjoy Oblivion.  However, if you don’t care about films in XD, or if you’re not into sound, mixed for Dolby Atmos, then this may be worth a rental or Netflix stream — which will probably happen in mid-June or July depending if Tom’s visage can keep the audience coming back week after week.

I must have a bit of Rain Man in me because sometimes I get fixated on words and phrases and start repeating them both in my head and aloud. This morning, I was thinking about how many times I’ve heard a variation of the following in public addresses and on social networks:

“Our thoughts and prayers go out to the…”
“Our hearts are with the…”
“HUGS”

I kept repeating these snippets to my daughter on the way to school — who laughed, but thought I was cynical. Maybe I am, but these phrases and gestures have grown to be empty, shopworn reactions in the aftermath of tragic events. Do the “Thoughts and prayers” go out to the families? I have no doubt that people do pray for those who are having a difficult time or have suffered a tragedy — and I’m sure they are sincere in their efforts. However, maybe it’s the blur of information that often washes over us that is making me cynical. For example, the attacks in Boston were shocking, tragic, and incredibly sad. I was watching a news stream from the BBC when I read about it via Twitter, and while the news anchors and reporters didn’t shed much light beyond the obvious (i.e., two bombs/explosives went off killing three and severely injuring hundreds), they didn’t report anything other than repeating what was known.

It used to be that if a tragic event did happen, radio and TV shows would be interrupted by a news flash, and then we’d go back to our “regularly scheduled program” at the conclusion of the report. Nowadays, you’ll see reports of tragedy interspersed among the minutiae of our social lives on Facebook, Google Plus and Twitter. People who do react to what has happened usually offer the (now) standard responses (see above). Or, if you are having a hard time and post it on your social network, you’ll get to bask in the glow of a virtual hug in the comment section. But just scroll up or down your feed and you’ll see that your personal hardship or societal tragedy is now on an even playing field with Someecards about how people hate their co-workers, desperately need a drink, or can’t wait for the weekend. Seeing these things side by side in a postmodern pastiche kind of denudes a horrible event that requires us to pause to comprehend and talk to one another about what happened. In a way, social networks offer that outlet, but looking at a news feed can feel like A.D.D. and very little of substance comes of it.

Perhaps this is the new “regularly scheduled program” and I’m just tired of what’s on TV.

NOTE: After I wrote this, I went to pick Maya up from school and NPR reported that in the aftermath of the bombings in Boston, people on Reddit have taken to amateur sleuthing; combing through photos of the blast, looking at images of people who were there, and trying to match them up to their online profiles.  The hope is that they can aid the F.B.I. in locating the perpetrators through their efforts. Now Reddit isn’t like Facebook, G+ or Twitter. Reddit is more like the BBS of the old Internet where people participated in discussions that had some substance.

Huh…perhaps my cynicism is waning.

In a way, Parker and Stone are an embodiment of the Internet culture before the Internet culture existed like it does now.  Think about what makes for the most popular YouTube clips, Facebook posts, Tweets, and even blog posts…they all go for something that shocks, is reveling,  or funny.  Guess why South Park is still popular?  Because they can consistently deliver a show that revolves around these three things.

Jenna Marbles and her best friends/kids.

The second phenomenon is Jenna Marbles — who was profiled in The New York Times.  She’s solely a YouTube star who makes weekly videos that lampoons celebrities, herself, and anything else that makes her laugh.  She reveals a lot about her personal life on these clips and does so in a way where she’s not shy about swearing or talking about things that teenage girls think about, but many rarely articulate.  Yes, it’s all very interior, but she’s also funny and often shocking.  Plus she’s adheres to the Stone/Parker schedule:  deliver a show/video each week.  Consistency in your brand is always a good thing, and many wannabe stars or creators will go for the shock to get attention, build a fan base, and monetize their content.  Then, once they achieve a certain level of success, they often sell out, go for the money, water down their content, sometimes alienate their core audience and could potentially lose it all.  For them, it’s their career.  For Marbles and the creators of South Park, I get the feeling that they would do what they do even if they couldn’t make money doing it. Their fans know this and that’s what they love about them: they are authentic in what they do.

Now, not everyone in entertainment can be like Jenna Marbles and Parker and Stone.  Their brand of humor appeals to a niche — but a sizable one.  Being authentic and passionate in your interests may not net you a large audience, but for those who are fans of your work, they will bond with you over their love of what you create.

If you want to watch 6 Day to Air: The Making of South Park, you can below.

If you’re a fan of the movie, The Graduate, then you know it was  filmed partially in the Bay Area. In one scene, Dustin Hoffman waits for Katharine Ross in Caffe Mediterraneum — the supposed birthplace of the caffè latte.  So yes, you can blame them for the prototype to a coffee drink that later became synonymous with suburban soccer moms.

Anyway, if you remember the scene, Hoffman sees Ross get on a city bus and he runs after it to the next stop.  Hoffman boards it and sits behind Ross to strike up a “Wow! Isn’t this a coincidence” conversation. Clearly, he’s annoying her, but the guy is obsessed and in love with her.

Hoffman as a guy who doesn’t give up on what he wants.

Growing up in the Bay Area, I didn’t really notice the location shots in San Francisco and Berkeley until I started film classes at Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill. My film teacher was going on and on about The Graduate in both laudatory and critical ways during class at times. But the biggest mistake that just got my film teacher’s dander up was the scene where Hoffman drives to Berkeley from San Francisco across the upper deck of the Bay Bridge. Well, if you live or have visited the Bay Area, you know that if you want to drive across the Bay Bridge to Berkeley from San Francisco, you have to drive on the lower deck of the bridge. But since the filmmakers wanted to go for the beauty shot rather than being geographically correct, we got this series of shots:

Hey Dustin! You’re going the wrong way.

The Graduate was such an interior film (i.e., it’s about the kind of social detachment of Dustin Hoffman’s character…well, until he falls in love), so making the Bay Area a character in the film wasn’t important to the story. But nevertheless, showing Berkeley and San Francisco sure means a lot to its residents. For me, I get a kick out of seeing the old Moe’s storefront and watching Hoffman running up Telegraph Avenue trying to catch the bus.  It’s a great shot for the study in contrasts that it creates.  Hoffman trying desperately to keep up with the bus, Ross catching a glimpse of him and hoping that he doesn’t get on the bus.  But when he does…well, just let the clip below play and you’ll see.

The Med, though, has a history that’s far more rich than the being in a Hollywood film. Rather, it’s one of the oldest coffee houses in California, and as such, has been a hub of left-leaning social movements. The Beats, New Left types, and Hippies all held court there where they talked about politics, maybe plotted strategy and generally found that it was “their place” to hone their personal and political identity. When I was in college in the late ’80s, Julie and I used to go into Berkeley to shop for books and records. Sure there were bookstores and places to buy records in San Francisco, but there weren’t great places like Moe’s and Cody’s — which were just a few doors down from each other. Rasputin Records was also pretty great to get lost in, but overall we did enjoy the vibe of just browsing for hours at the bookstores. Since this was the pre-Internet age, it was these places where you could find titles that had small publishing runs (mostly the academic presses), and you could  find rare books as well.

Moe’s still exists (even though its owner, Moe Moskowitz, died 16 years ago), and they still carry an impressive collection of used books. Being so close to a university and existing in a highly literate city, I gotta say that browsing in a bookstore like that is a real treat. Sure, we go to our local Barnes and Noble in Walnut Creek, but most of the titles they carry are pretty mainstream. Going to Moe’s is wonderful because of the sheer volume of books on whatever subject you can think of. I sure hope they don’t go out of business because I think if they do, it will signal the end times for me. Sure, I don’t go to Moe’s as much as I used to, but when I do go it reminds me of why I love reading and collecting books. Some of the works just seem so important that I just want to have them on my bookshelf. Yes, I could easily fill up my Nook with these titles, but having a physical copy is just…well, there’s nothing like it for me.

Well, after book shopping in Berkeley, what do you do next? Go to The Med, of course. They do have great coffee and the place has been remodeled and cleaned up so it’s not, as it was in the late ’90s, a kind of adjunct homeless shelter. The place is still populated with potpourri of interesting-to-look-at folks. Students, hipsters, really old hippies, street people, and…well us. You know, a suburban couple who are out for the afternoon. For Julie’s family, the place has a lot of historical significance. I texted her dad these pictures today, and I think it brought back some good memories for him. The first one is Julie standing across from the Med:

Julie outside the Med in Berkeley, CA

Nice pic, huh. I sent that to Julie’s dad and he texted back:

Wow! Caffe Med, where Joyce, Robert and I hung out. Have they painted or updated anything in the last 50 years?

I wrote back:

Yeah, the downstairs is updated.  Here’s the new counter.

 

The Med looking a bit more updated.

So…who are Joyce and Robert?  Joyce is Julie’s mom and Robert was a friend of theirs from high school.  When they were in high school, they started a club (not affiliated with their high school) that had a long-ass name — the only word in the title I do remember is “chowder.” Anyway, it was a playfully anti-establishment club where these central valley misfits could find their individualism in a very monocultural Modesto.  I could be getting this part of the story wrong, but I seem to remember that Julie’s mom and dad — along with Robert and others in the club — wrote up a newsletter-type thing that was critical of high school and paid special attention to the failings of the principal.  Well, a copy of their writings made its way to the principal’s office. I guess he wasn’t a fan of their exercise in free speech, and they got a reprimand writing “such horrible things.” I think after that encounter with The Man, the club kind of disbanded.  Like I said, I’m sure I have totally screwed up the telling of this tale, but I think I got their anti-establishment bona fides pretty much correct. So, Robert, Joyce (as she was known then) and Michael all moved to Berkeley to attend college at Cal (I don’t know if Robert did, but I presume he was there for school), and The Med played a part in their early years away from home and on their own. I don’t know if it has such a “cool factor” for Julie as it does for me, but just knowing that this was her parent’s hangout makes the place kind of special for me.

Now that I’m an old fart  older, my memory of the place isn’t as good as it used to be.  When Julie and I went there today to get some coffee and a snack, I noticed there was an upstairs seating area (the picture above was taken from our table). I don’t remember there being an upstairs area when I used to go there, but there it was…tables, chairs, and books! What I like about the upstairs area is that it has a nice vibe and it’s a great perch for people watching. So if you’re ever in Berkeley, make sure to visit the Caffe Mediterraneum (Caffe Med or “The Med”).  They do make a great latte and if you’re a film fan, you can snap a picture of yourself looking stalkerish longingly like Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate.

The Med upstairs with the bookshelf (if you need something to read instead of looking at your phone).

Bye bye guard tower…

Well, it’s over…’til October. AMC’s The Walking Dead has become quite the hit show.  Who would have thought that a show about zombies and human survivors on the run would catch on with so many people.  But the show has “legs” and will be on the air until…well, until AMC or the show’s creators pull the plug.

This season was probably the most anticipated season for fans of the show. If you are (or were) one of the folks who is reading (or read) the graphic novel/comics, you know that the character of The Governor is one of the most hated (and, for some, loved) in the series.  The TV show and the graphic novel/comic depart from each other in many ways, and even when The Governor was introduced on the TV show, he wasn’t pure evil like he was in the comic book.  Instead, actor David Morrissey plays him in a more charismatic way – with a charm offensive first, and then once the layers come off, as an almost nihilist psychopath. You can see the contrast between the two Governor characters below.

Evil, psycho, Governor from the comic book

Charismatic, but equally psycho, Governor from the TV Show.

Kudos to David Morrissey for the way he portrayed The Governor this season.  He brought a lot a of subtly to a role that essentially called for him to be power-hungry and insane.  They set him up as an example of what happens when you become a dictator — something Rick was dealing with, too.  But where The Governor was kinda sorta able to recreate the world before the zombie apocalypse in his gated community of Woodbury, Rick struggled in his own gated community in the prison under a similar political structure (“Ricktatorship”).  Part of that struggle was Rick going off the rails after the death of his wife and him wandering around the outskirts of the prison being, as Glen put it, “The mayor of Crazy Town.”  So, in a way, the grand arc of the show was to show why a dictatorship is not good for the human survivors — and how Rick eventually learned that lesson.

However…

All the episodes were leading up to a big fight between The Governor and Rick, but that didn’t happen — and yes, I was disappointed.  I felt like the show’s creators strung us (the viewers) along for episode after episode only to shift away from the big showdown toward a more open-ended conclusion.  Also, it may be a bad analogy, but there was a kind of “Darth Vader gets away” element to The Governor.  After he slaughtered his Woodbury “army” for not following him unconditionally, his getaway from the scene of the slaughter with Martinez and…that other guy… left me wondering “Well, he can’t go back to Woodbury, so where are they going?” I suppose The Governor will be back in the next season, but in what manner? He only has a couple of people with him and few guns.  But if they do go back to Woodbury and regroup, I hope next season isn’t “The Walking Dead:  The Governor Strikes Back.”

That’s right, it’s my daughter’s birthday today…

17 years ago, Julie huffed and puffed and gave birth to our wonderful baby girl, Maya.  Sometimes time goes by so fast, while other times it’s kind of slow. I remember that first month we had Maya, time seemed to crawl — and I think a lot of that had to do with how little sleep we were getting at the time.  Overall, she was a very good baby, who woke up every couple of hours to eat.  But once she ate, burped, and got her diaper changed, she went right back to sleep.  It took time to get used to that routine, and by the time we did, she started sleeping longer stretches.

Colic = hell.  Simple as that.  Five months of crying every night right at 7:30pm.  It would last until 9:00pm or so, and then she would eat and fall asleep.  We got sort of used to it, but in reality we couldn’t wait for this phase to be over.  It stopped around the time we moved to California from Philadelphia, so that was a plus!

Flash forward to today…

Maya has gone from that infant, to toddler, to small child, to tween, to teen in what seems like a blur.  She’s driving, is thinking about getting a summer job, and worried about college, a major, and generally what she wants to do with her life.  Plus, there’s high school.  She’s got a lot on her plate with AP and honors courses, so her weekends are often filled with the dreaded homework.  I’m sure there’s drama at her school with friends, crushes, and all the other crap that high school is famous for.  But you know what? She doesn’t bring much of that drama home — which means either she doesn’t get too caught up in it, or that she can compartmentalize things pretty well.  Whatever the case, it’s her life, and she’s the one who has to negotiable all the twists and turns. Sure, we offer advice and support, but for the most part she’s learning to take on more and more responsibility for herself — which is what you want for your teen as they get older, huh.

A few things I do know, though:  Maya is one of the kindest, loving and funniest kids I know. Sure I’m biased because she’s my daughter, but when I look at the relationship many teens have with their parents, I feel like Julie and I are very lucky to have a child who loves her parents and wants to be around them.  That’s kind of an anomaly.

Julie and I will miss her terribly when she leaves the nest for college, but we don’t like to think about that day.  She’s got a whole new adventure waiting when that happens.  But for now, she’s just as surprised as we are that she’s 17.

Happy birthday, Maya.  Your mama and I love you so very, very, very, very, very much!

There was a pretty good radio industry article on AllAccess about the uncharted territory of social media and its relation to radio stations. This may sound a bit boring to my regular readers, but in my former life, I used to direct the social media strategy of a group of radio stations. The stations where kind of late to the social media game, but because I was pretty knee-deep in the stuff (and went to conferences and seminars on it), they pegged me as “the guy who understands this whole Facebook/Twitter thing.”

Well, anyone who tells you that they are a social media expert, is stretching the truth because the reality is that even for those who work for Facebook, Google and Twitter haven’t quite figured out the dimensions of this thing yet. Oh sure, they are quick to sell your browsing habits to anyone who wants to buy ads on their platform, they’ve amassed tons a data that we (as users) have given them freely, they are constantly changing the “look” of the user interface, privacy settings (mostly Facebook), and are trying to make it look like you have to be using their service to connect, promote, and hangout. If you don’t…well, you’re just out in the cold, aren’t you. The message being: everyone’s doing it, so why shouldn’t you?

So, as we join this and that social network and take part in the process of status updates, tweets, and sharing what’s new, businesses are wondering, “Hey how do I get my message in front of all those people.” Well, for some businesses, buying access on social network and creating novel ways to piss people off  advertise may work (i.e., “Bob likes his Toyota Avalon. Find out why!” Or, “Mary is listening to “Fences” by Paramore on Spotify”), but what about radio stations?

Sure we listen to them, but do we want to be “social” with them? What do we get out of the experience? Well, that was the challenge when I was in charge of social media. For the stations I was working for, they had launched new online streams and wanted people to listen. So, it was decided to do what radio stations have always done when they want to get more listeners: they pay them. How many radio contests have you heard that promise a chance to win cash, front row concert tickets, a new car, a vacation to Hawaii and the like? Well, that’s paying people to listen. Sure, only a very small percentage of listeners will actually win the “big prize” but it creates a buzz, some excitement, and gets people thinking about your station that has that contest. It’s a very old trick, and tends to work pretty well to boost listenership…or at least it used to.

Then came social media, and the game changed.

Now that we’re an on-demand and a me-centric culture – because social media conditions us to shift the center of the universe to ourselves — media entities like radio can become less alluring because instead of getting what you want when you want (i.e., the Internet), one has to wait for things (i.e., a song, a traffic report, a contest, news, etc.) when listening to the radio. In other words, there’s an alternative to old media. If you have a smart phone, you don’t have to wait. Want to hear that song you love now? Just launch Rdio or Spotify. Want traffic reports? Well, there’s an app for that. News? Weather? Sport? It’s all there for you with just a push of a button. Why do you need radio? Well, to be frank, people get tired of being their own program director, and want someone else to drive for a while. Radio fills that hole. But do you want a radio station to be in your social network? Well, it’s possible, but what do you get out it? A connection with the DJs? If they are on the same social media platforms as you, their special status kind of gets flattened. They are no longer “stars” whose ability to entertain and inform is unique. Rather, they are just another “friend” in a person’s network. Get it? You (i.e., a station) are on the same plane as other Like pages. You’re not that special preset on a radio, but are part of hundreds of status updates clogging up a newsfeed all vying for attention. Prizes? Well, I suppose there will always be people who want to win stuff and will play contests. But can’t they get that from listening to the radio? Why do I need a “Win Cash” update on my Facebook wall messing with my gossip time about someone I knew in high school or college? How about special knowledge about songs and artists? Sorry, radio…Wikipedia has got you there. Funny and entertaining?  YouTube.  You’ll see the best and worst in humankind — and some of it is funny and entertaining.

All is not lost, however (and from here on out, I’m talking to people who own radio stations)…

Radio stations are brands…you already reinforce your brand with what you program on the air. There’s no need to duplicate what you do on the air on social networks. Look at Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. They don’t always tweet out what’s coming up on their show. They mix it up with funny observations about politics, news, and life in general. People like that because the content is separate from what’s on TV. If Stewart and Colbert just recycled jokes from their shows on Facebook and Twitter, I would wager that people wouldn’t follow and Like them as much as they do now.

Think of your social network as another channel of your brand, but the way you interact with your so-called “friends” is to give them content that’s related to what you program over the airwaves. What you don’t what to do is something like this: you’re a country station and you post information and links about dubstep. That’s not “another channel,” that’s another dimension in the space-time continuum that’ll make your social media followers unfollow you pretty quickly. However, what if you found a YouTube clip that had the isolated vocal tracks of a core artist that you play. You post it, with a detailed comment about how you love his or her voice and ask if your followers have favorites of that artist they’d like to share with you. If the conversation goes well (let’s say you get 20-30 comments), then spotlight the most poplar song that keeps coming up in the comments and play it on the air. Don’t make it gimmicky. Just do it organically…and let your audience know that this came out of a great conversation you had on Facebook or Twitter. Think of that example as an updated request line. It’s asking the audience to take part in programming the radio station in a small way.  If you actually follow through, then it becomes special and it builds a brand loyalty.

Also, tell your jocks who have access to your Facebook and Twitter accounts this: Don’t post just to post. It comes across as stupid and spammy — even though most of the content on social networks are stupid and spammy. Why cheapen your brand by acting like those addicts who just fill up your news feed with utter drivel? If your jocks (I’m talking about DJs, by the way) put time and effort into show prep so what they say on the air is worth the listener’s time, why not do the same for social networking? When I was a jock, there was usually one break on an air shift that would go on my “master reel” I would use as a demo of my work. If I didn’t have one break that I thought was pretty great, I knew that I didn’t put any time and effort into prepping for my show. Think of a Facebook post or tweet in a similar way. You’re reinforcing your brand (both the station’s and your personal brand) with good content, so why half-ass it? If you’re a jock, a salesperson, or work in promotions, you try to put your best foot forward when you represent the station, right? So it should be for your station’s social network. If your station is irreverent, then being irreverent on your social network is totally fine. That’s what your audience expects. Your station has an identity. Your jocks have identities that are similar to your station (that’s why you hired them, right? They project the “voice” of your station), so remind them that they are still “on the air” when they are on the station’s social networks. They should personalize their posts in a way that keeps the “listener benefit” front and center. Yes, I know…social networking has become all about “Planet Me! Me! Me!” but have you noticed that when you invite others to opine on this or that topic, many accept that invitation and comment on your post? Oh, and if you getting a lot of comments per post, make sure you reply to what’s being said. People like to know that their opinions count. You don’t have a reply to each person individually, but group and tag them in the reply so they know that they’ve been “heard.”

Doing all this will not net you any more listeners, nor will it help your advertisers increase their sales (that’s what on-air commercials are for) but it will reinforce your brand. And as the author of the AllAccess piece pointed out, it will create an affinity between you and your audience.