Just a few pointers for the ad guys who know nothing about cars, car buyers, or TV.
First remember that you are selling a car, you are not selling pretty girls, hunky guys, exotic vacation spots, or open road. The video should concentrate on the car. And guys, we all have color TV's now. In fact we have all had color TV since the 1980's. Show us the car in color, not black and white. I know black and white is arty and cool, but the cars look better in color. Give us a good side view, front view, rear view and interior view. Show the car moving. For extra credit show us the engine.
Second. Give us the name of the car at the beginning of the commercial. The ad is worthless if us TV viewers don't know which car it is. Remember, it's the 21st century and cars all look alike now. Name the car, on the screen and in the voiceover at the beginning. The car logo isn't enough. Many of us can't keep Chevy bowties and Ford blue ovals straight in our heads, let alone the smaller brands.
Third. Tell us what makes this car desirable and worth laying out big bucks for. It might be performance, or luxury, or carrying capacity, or greenness, or off road handling, or something. No car can be all things to all customers, so figure out what this car is and let us know it.
Fourth. Show the price in the ad. Price is the most important single specification of cars, (or anything for that matter). If you don't show us the price, we TV viewers figure it's too expensive for us, and the ad is wasted.
Monday, February 22, 2010
F for NBC Olympic coverage
Watching the ski racing. At the end of the race, NBC is too brain dead to show the racer's time to us TV viewers. Ski racers are all good, all fast, and the difference between a gold and last place is a fraction of a second. After watching the skier hurtle down hill we want to know how well he did, namely his time.
NBC sometimes displayed a stopwatch on screen but it was broken, showing 2 minutes and some seconds as the skier leaves the start house, where it should read zero. It also would stop and start erratically during the run. They never displayed the skiers time and name, not at the start, not during the run, and not after the run. BOO.
NBC sometimes displayed a stopwatch on screen but it was broken, showing 2 minutes and some seconds as the skier leaves the start house, where it should read zero. It also would stop and start erratically during the run. They never displayed the skiers time and name, not at the start, not during the run, and not after the run. BOO.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Constituent Service, Scott Brown version
Newly elected Senator Scott Brown sent me nice thank-you letter, for my modest (very modest) campaign contribution last month. I'm suitably impressed. Clearly a man who understands ordinary politeness and makes sure it happens. I wish him well.
Cost Cutting, Health Care version
Doctors buy malpractice insurance to protect themselves against lawyers. The insurance can run as much as $100,000 a year. That's a helova lot of money. If the doctor works 50 weeks a year, 40 hours a week that's 2000 hours. $100,000 / 2000 hours equals $50/hr. The doctor has to charge $50 an hour for his time just to pay his malpractice insurance.
That's one of the reasons that medical care is so expensive. We could cut this down a lot.
1. Cap on awards. Surely $300,000 dollars is enough compensation for pain and suffering. In fact it's generous for individuals. But it's too low to feed a lawyer. Malpractice lawyers work on contingency fees, they take the lion's share of any court awards in lieu of fees. A couple of million dollar jackpots covers the expenses of the suits they loose. Lower the awards and a lot of lawyers will find more profitable lines of work.
2. Demand expert witnesses be real practicing doctors, not hired mouths. An expert witness should be required to show that he personally treated a round dozen cases like the case before the court. Right now any joker with a medical degree is an expert witness. Most of them do no medicine, they just testify in court, for pay. Real practicing doctors have real experience, and are reluctant to point fingers at colleagues. The hired mouths will say anything they are paid to say.
3. Adopt a "loser pays" rule. Losing side pays all the court costs. That will drive off the weaker suits.
4. Forbid lawyers to advertise for plaintiffs. Used to be it was unethical for lawyers to advertise at all. Now Fox TV runs hourly ads from lawyers looking for plaintiffs to give them some standing to sue.
5. Proscribing FDA approved drugs and medical equipment is NEVER malpractice. Even if the FDA later changes its mind and pulls the drug off the market. The FDA is so conservative in granting approval for the sale of drugs, that any reasonable person is justified in believing approved drugs are safe. Doctors, hospitals and drug companies should not get sued for proscribing, administering and manufacturing FDA approved drugs.
That's one of the reasons that medical care is so expensive. We could cut this down a lot.
1. Cap on awards. Surely $300,000 dollars is enough compensation for pain and suffering. In fact it's generous for individuals. But it's too low to feed a lawyer. Malpractice lawyers work on contingency fees, they take the lion's share of any court awards in lieu of fees. A couple of million dollar jackpots covers the expenses of the suits they loose. Lower the awards and a lot of lawyers will find more profitable lines of work.
2. Demand expert witnesses be real practicing doctors, not hired mouths. An expert witness should be required to show that he personally treated a round dozen cases like the case before the court. Right now any joker with a medical degree is an expert witness. Most of them do no medicine, they just testify in court, for pay. Real practicing doctors have real experience, and are reluctant to point fingers at colleagues. The hired mouths will say anything they are paid to say.
3. Adopt a "loser pays" rule. Losing side pays all the court costs. That will drive off the weaker suits.
4. Forbid lawyers to advertise for plaintiffs. Used to be it was unethical for lawyers to advertise at all. Now Fox TV runs hourly ads from lawyers looking for plaintiffs to give them some standing to sue.
5. Proscribing FDA approved drugs and medical equipment is NEVER malpractice. Even if the FDA later changes its mind and pulls the drug off the market. The FDA is so conservative in granting approval for the sale of drugs, that any reasonable person is justified in believing approved drugs are safe. Doctors, hospitals and drug companies should not get sued for proscribing, administering and manufacturing FDA approved drugs.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Snooping by laptop
You must have heard about the school district that issued laptops to the students and then remotely turned on the built in video cameras and sneaked photographs of the students at home?
Takeaways:
1. That school district had more money than brains to issue student laptops. No way would my district be so profligate. Students learn by studying, not by computering. Plus the students all have computers already. Why spend public money to give 'em a backup computer?
2. If a computer illiterate public school can turn a laptop into a video snoop camera, so can anyone else. A piece of duct tape over the camera lens (and perhaps another piece over the built in microphone) is your only guarantee of privacy. Good thing my antique 3 Gigahz desktop lacks cameras and microphones.
3. That school board has to be stuck on stupid. They can look forward to getting voted out of office next election time.
Takeaways:
1. That school district had more money than brains to issue student laptops. No way would my district be so profligate. Students learn by studying, not by computering. Plus the students all have computers already. Why spend public money to give 'em a backup computer?
2. If a computer illiterate public school can turn a laptop into a video snoop camera, so can anyone else. A piece of duct tape over the camera lens (and perhaps another piece over the built in microphone) is your only guarantee of privacy. Good thing my antique 3 Gigahz desktop lacks cameras and microphones.
3. That school board has to be stuck on stupid. They can look forward to getting voted out of office next election time.
America is ungovernable?
I hear the Democrats whining this whine now that Obamacare seems to be dead. Probably true. I don't like being governed (bossed around) any more than the next American. America doesn't need or want governance. We like leadership instead. We don't like Obamacare, and we were able to resist the Democratic attempt to stuff it down our throats. I like that kind of ungovernable.
By the way, Obamacare is kinda like a snake. You can't depend upon a snake being dead until it's cut up into six inch lengths. I don't see Obamacare as being that kind of dead, yet. It's lying on the floor and not moving much, but it might come back to life and bite.
By the way, Obamacare is kinda like a snake. You can't depend upon a snake being dead until it's cut up into six inch lengths. I don't see Obamacare as being that kind of dead, yet. It's lying on the floor and not moving much, but it might come back to life and bite.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Why the Love Gene in cats?
Cats, at least modern house cats, love their humans. Nothing else explains why cats demand petting, sleep on favored human's beds, sit in laps, and purr when picked up and stroked. They get terribly lonely when left alone. But what is the evolutionary origin of this gene? Cats are solitary hunters, not pack animals. Before hooking up with humans back in Egyptian times, what good would a gene to love humans do for a cat? I have read of small African wild cats that cannot be tamed even today. Presumably that breed of cat lacks the love gene.
After hooking up with humans, the love gene is obviously a good thing. Compare well fed and sleek house cats with skinny, dirty, and miserable looking alley cats. It interacts successfully with the love animals gene in humans.
Perhaps the cat love gene is a mutation or only occurs in small numbers of cats in the wild. The love animals gene in humans prompts them to adopt kittens. Perhaps the adoptions proceeded unsuccessfully until some human got lucky and adopted a kitten carrying the love gene. Once settled in with humans the cats with the love gene would flourish and the cats that lacked it would go back to the wild.
Does this account for a origin of the species of affectionate cats?
After hooking up with humans, the love gene is obviously a good thing. Compare well fed and sleek house cats with skinny, dirty, and miserable looking alley cats. It interacts successfully with the love animals gene in humans.
Perhaps the cat love gene is a mutation or only occurs in small numbers of cats in the wild. The love animals gene in humans prompts them to adopt kittens. Perhaps the adoptions proceeded unsuccessfully until some human got lucky and adopted a kitten carrying the love gene. Once settled in with humans the cats with the love gene would flourish and the cats that lacked it would go back to the wild.
Does this account for a origin of the species of affectionate cats?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)