Are you sitting in your trailer watching high school football highlights and looking at old prom king photos? Regret spending too much time at the bar and not enough at library? Wishing there was some way to cash in on those thousands (if not millions) of high fives doled out in social revelry over the years? We'll you're in luck, provided you kept all those Facebook friends.
Today marks the culmination of something I've been talking about for a long time. If you remember from my last blog post Revolutionary New Social Ads from Facebook, I talked about how the new social ads from Facebook were another step in solidifying the value of being influential (aka popular) in the social media ecosystem. My logic was that by showing people which of their friends liked certain brands, you could over time see who's "likes" where more influential to their friends tastes. I was pondering aloud(and hopefully not to myself) what the implications will be for knowing which people produce more concrete marketing value for brands. I'd like to thank the good people over at GILT for not wasting a moment of my time.
Before you get too excited I'll admit they didn't answer my question about social Facebook ad influencers specifically, but did make a significant statement about the value of being an online taste-maker as a whole. What exactly did they say to cool kids everywhere? "Your opinion is worth money, so here's a check". This week Gilt will give out discounts solely based on its member's Klout scores. For those unfamiliar, Klout is a startup from San Francisco that quantifies user's online influence from 0 to 100 on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Linkedin and Foursquare. My Klout score, for example, is 46. According to Gilt that means I am eligible for a 40% discount worth up to $50! If you think that's nifty consider users with scores 81-100 get a 100% discount! It will be interesting to see how this experiment unfolds and I for one am excited (provided I remain "cool" enough for $50 dollar discounts).
On February 23rd leaked documents from Facebook revealed it is rolling out a revolutionary new advertising program. Anytime someone with access to the world's personal information decides to revolutionize anything I get a little uneasy. However, I'm happy to say this time I'm excited and think its a big step in the right direction.
Starting soon, the sponsored advertisements on the side of your page will no longer feature ads with written copy, but promoted content from the company's page showing which of your friends have liked/commented on it. This means instead of seeing an ad from Liftopia trying to convince you to like their page, you might see their recent photo caption contest instead, showing which of your friends participated. Additionally this sponsored content will also appear in your news feed as friends like and interact with different brands.
These changes from Facebook make two very distinct statements. The first is that content is king and the second is we care more about what our friends think than what marketers think. The focus on quality content is a function of what I love most about digital marketing. In a world where we have a great scarcity of attention every drop of it counts. Marketers are recognizing more and more that if they are going to get a few seconds of our precious time they will need to offer something in return. If you want my attention you must create something worth reading/seeing/participating in. Facebook shouldn't be a new channel to barrage customers with messaging, but a a flexible medium for both parties to interact within. Another feature embracing this "don't waste my time" attitude is that interactions with sponsored content occur in the actual advertisement. This means to like or comment on sponsored content users don't have to chase it back to the source but can interact immediately and at minimal cost to them.
The second statement, that we give more credence to our friend's opinions than marketer's, adds another interesting dimension of value to what Chris Anderson describes as "the world's largest closed market of reputational currency". Watching Facebook develop over the years, I've taken a particular interest in how people manage this reputional currency. Southpark captures the idea better than most in their episode "You Have Zero Friends" where Kyle learns first hand that "buying" bad Facebook stock, aka adding someone who isn't cool, damages the value of your social capital. The clip below says it all.
I apologize for the atrocious quality. C'mon people, I thought we were past filming our televisions.
The value of your Facebook stock is dependent on much more than your friend list. Take for instance how constantly making meaningless status updates hurts your perception of other's "stock". From my perspective a large determinant of this value comes from the quantity and quality of your content. Someone constantly sharing interesting stories, ideas and video's is going to be more valuable to their Facebook friends than someone with inferior content.
Now consider this concept of reputational currency in the context of evaluating brands based on who else likes them. In a world where not all likes are created equal, the likes of some will have a greater impact than others. I believe this impact will be determined by user's general reputational currency but also by the perceived value of their reputation in specific contexts. I know when I see a DJ friend of mine like an artist I am drastically more likely to check out their page than if it where liked by my friend's Mom. Imagine the discrepancy in value of the most popular girl in a large sorority with thousands of friends liking Bacardi Silver compared to a quiet introvert with fifty friends.
Thinking of your likes in terms of social value is one thing, now imagine those likes having monetary value. Instead of my reputation being good for getting people to check out my new blog posts it is now good for creating concrete marketing value for brands I support. This shift creates an exciting opportunity for understanding and measuring how ideas spread. For the first time ever there will be concrete statistics about who the most influential taste-makers are and how valuable their likes are. I for one am excited to see how this discrepancy in the value of people's likes changes the way companies market.
An important shift I haven't touched on yet is sponsored content appearing in your news feed. This is the only part of the change I am wary off. I liked having sponsored ads on the side because it was easy to recognize them as such. Having sponsored stories in your news feed has the potential to be deceiving and is what I consider to be one of the greatest threats to the internet. I acknowledge that Facebook is a valuable service and am willing to accept the cost of my attention to ads in exchange. However, I object to Facebook manipulating the information that gets to me without me knowing I've been manipulated. It's one thing if they are tweaking filter bubbles to get me more relevant content, but deceptively compromising the service provided to me for their gain at my expense is not, as Eric Cartman would say, "coo". A primary violator of this is Yelp.com. Unbeknownst to their users, Yelp pressures small businesses to pay addition fees in return for deleting negative reviews. Of course everything I just mentioned is dependent on how news feed stories are identified. If the distinction is easy to make I don't think it much of a problem.
This TED talk is not directly related but touches on many of the ideas involved with having unknown filtering take place.
I was browsing through Linkedin today trying to get a better feel for the marketing and e-commerce industry when I realized why its so important that your settings allow you to be recognized when you've viewed somebody's profile. Furthermore the reason behind this is the central difference between how our generation networks on Facebook and how they should adapt their networking philosophy to Linkedin. Before I get into it let me briefly explain the setting options:
1. Totally Anonymous
It is what it sounds like. You will be browsing completely anonymously and nobody will have a clue you've viewed their profile.
2. Anonymous With Profile Characteristics
This option keeps your profile anonymous while sharing general characteristics about you. For example if mine where on that setting and I viewed your profile it would read "Your profile was viewed by: Someone in the Intern function in the Marketing and Advertising industry from Greater New York City Area"
3. Your Name and Headline
This option means if I view your profile my full name and headline will be displayed and you could follow that link to view my profile.
Initially when I got a Linkedin profile I kept my settings to either anonymous or anonymous with profile characteristics. I did this for the same reason you probably have those settings right now...you don't want to look like a creep. With the sudden rush of connectivity in our society one of the most frowned upon characteristics a person can have is being downright creepy. Some of the most popular Facebook scams are the "do such and such and see whose viewed your profile" because we are all so interested in who's creepin' on us.
As a generation of Facebook users we have certain networking instincts that are deeply embedded in all of us. The goal of Facebook is to maintain your social brand...aka not look like a dork. This requires maintaining a degree of exclusivity and self image. For Facebook users trying to build their professional brand on Linkedin it is important to recognize the difference between the goals of each and how to go about them.
On Linkedin the goal is to expand your professional brand and network. The more attention you can draw to yourself the better. Obviously some of the core principles of Facebook networking still apply. Don't spam people or overwhelm them with inappropriate content. Don't say or do anything you wouldn't like to be held accountable for. The essential difference is that you are trying to reach as many people as possible, namely, people that can help you get a job. This is particularly true for young aspiring professionals (the general audience of this blog). Over my two years here at Geneseo I rapidly learned that if I want to do something outside an introductory finance job in the Rochester area I better learn to network and do so aggressively. Linkedin has proven to be my most effective tool for doing so.
So why change your settings to announce how creepy you are? The second part of the answer is rooted in a basic web traffic/e-commerce principle. Think of your Linkedin as a store that sells your brand. You can find heaping servings of Mark Dougherty here on my Linkedin profile. Instead of your storefront being on the street with a door leading in its on the web with links leading in. The more "doors" you can create leading into your storefront the more potential customers (aka employers) you can let in. When creeping around the division of that company you are interested why not leave a trail of doors leading to your storefront? Maybe they'll think your a Linkedin nerd. I'll be the first to admit to such a title. However, employers aren't looking for bros to help them get their drink on, their looking for competent individuals who make themselves marketable and easy to find.
We all knew it was inevitable. Today Facebook launched a program called "Deals" which enables users to shop through Facebook. The program is being tested in five cities (San Francisco, Austin, Dallas, Atlanta and San Diego) and offers steep discounts similarly to the group buying sites mentioned in my previous post The Rebirth of Student Discounts Through Collective Buying. I anticipate this to be a major threat to overnight group buying sensations Groupon and Living Social. Imagine the dismay of finding out there is a rival service that already hast 600 million members in addition to an endless quantifiable amount of their personal information and behavior patterns. Looks like we'll find out if Groupon can live up to the hype and if people are willing to let Facebook dominate yet another aspect of their lives.
Here's an extremely interesting video my friend Harrison shared with me about education. I've always felt our education system only allows a select few to reach their potential while alienating and discouraging the rest. This video does a great job of breaking down some of the issues at heart into a way that is easy to understand.
Now here's a website I can get behind. CollegeBudget.com offers MASSIVE discounts of 90-50% off exclusively to college students. I was turned on to this site by a kid who sits next to me in my Humanities class. As luck would have it I was in the market for a protective laptop case/sleeve and right on the site was a deal for laptop cases 63% off. Sadly for you this deal ended at 12 o'clock last night, which is part of the kicker. Each day College Budget lists a handful of deals that go up only for a few days, if not just one. Selling such deeply discounted products requires insuring you sell enough to make some profit. For this reason the deals on CollegeBudget.com have "tipping points" or a certain number of orders required for the sale to happen. This is reminiscent of my previous post about Quirky.com where a certain number of customers must commit to purchasing an invention before it can be sold. These types for deals are known as group buying. The good people at CollegeBudget.com aren't the first to conjure up such an idea.
Group or collective buying was originated in the People's Republic of China. Instead of buying through large mega deal sites like Groupon, collective buying emerged through a handful of individuals approaching online retailers as a group in an attempt to use leverage to haggle for a lower price. The idea has since made its way to America and sites like Groupon and Living Social have been making a killing over the past few years. Two years after starting Groupon in November of 2008 its owners flat out denied an offer from Google for the company for $6 billion dollars. While the deals group buying sites offer excite buyers and allow smaller companies to reach millions of customers, they yield little revenue for the companies that participate. By making such deals available to customers are companies expanding their customer base or just training their customers not to tolerate anything less than 50% off? Only time (and retail price reorder rates of group buying customers) will tell.
A toothbrush that never touches the counter? Germaphobes rejoice!
Here are two e-commerce companies I thought were cool enough to be blog-worthy. The first is Quirky.com. On Quirky inventors submit their products to be put up on the site. If enough people commit to buying one Quirky will then carry it regularly. It takes around 1500 commitments for them to carry a product. Quirky is a great example of how the internet makes the cost of distribution negligible and the diffusion of ideas rapid.
The other is Liftopia.com. My friend, who's name is also Mark (why associate with non-Marks when you don't have to?), turned me on to Liftopia this weekend. It seems to be the same premise as travel sites like hotwire.com and expedia. When mountains don't think they will reach capacity, which they rarely do on weekdays, they sell their excess lift tickets through Lifopia at discounted prices. This idea is brilliant for resorts because they tend to be heavy on fixed costs to begin with. It costs the same to run chairlifts and open the mountain regardless of how many people ski that day. As a college senior who will no longer have access to deals like the Triple Major (Jay Peak, Bolton and Mad River combined season passes for $275!) Liftopia is a welcome service.
Now go grab some cheap lift tickets or a wacky desk organizer and thank me later.
I love this commercial and think it is both hilarious and genius. By mocking the ignorant over-patriotic stigma of Americans it allows viewers to feel they are beyond such a stigma whilst being affected by it. This commercial rivals the national sentiment of my previous post Canadian Pride (I know right?)
Here is a really interesting article from The Economist. Since I know most of you won't read it, allow me to briefly explain.
They did an experiment at an amusement park where a camera snaps a picture of patrons and they then have the opportunity to buy the picture. For the experiment instead of charging the standard $12.95 they told customers they could pay whatever they liked. As a result, even including the people who chose to pay nothing, they made more money with the "pay what you wish" policy. Additionally, they tested an option where customers could pay what they want and where told half would go to charity. With this option revenues nearly tripled! That is including after the money was split to the charity.
This is similar to the case in Freakonomics where the author examined a bagel business that ran by dropping of a bag of bagels to company and putting a box out for people to pay what they wish. Again in that case the bagel company still made at least normal profits. Ironically the only people who didn't pay were the executives.
As both cases prove, there is more to every transaction than just dollars and cents. What people think about themselves and what other people think about them has great value. This is a great example of how the decisions we make are more complicated than we assume. In the article they call it "shared social responsibility". I call it not wanting to look and feel like a D-Bag at Six Flags with your family. Consider Salvation Army fundraising. I hate to sound like a bitter pessimist but how many people that donate do you think have a genuine interest in helping the Salvation Army? Most people (including myself) barely even know where the money goes or how it is used. If people had the sole desire to help the Salvation Army they would actively seek it out on their own to make donations. I'm not mitigating the virtue of charity. I'm simply saying sometimes looking a cold bell-ringing Santa in the face and walking away can cost more than the change in your pocket.
They both involve too much information! (or TMI if you speak teenage girl) I'm not sure if anyone has noticed recently but the raw amount of information on Facebook has been increasing dramatically. Now I know what you are thinking "Wow Mark...Facebook having a lot of information...brilliant observation." Condescending smirks aside, I noticed this the other day after posting my most recent blog post Music Without "The Industry". I noticed in Google Analytics that the post got less Facebook traffic than usual and, since nobody could ever see a new post by me and not want to read it, I determined something had to be up.
Because people frequently complain about this blog being hard to find (Its called a bookmark!) I post one link through my personal Facebook and another through the A Delicious Blend Facebook Page. After posting I usually refresh my home page to confirm nothing has gone awry. This time instead of each appearing above one another in my news feed neither surfaced. I checked back to insure both posts went through and everything was fine. The problem was (and still is) that they were buried under a more massive amount of Facebook info (if anyone can come up with a clever trendy name for Facebook information let me know) than ever before.
I think the fact that people share information by the ton on Facebook is great. While I don't care what adorable thing your cat just did or what your GPA was last semester (Alec), who am I to judge what information is worthy of sharing? I personally love sharing new music, interesting articles, and of course my own blog posts on Facebook. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who hate seeing links to my screechy nonsensical music or self centered blogosphere blather. All the same there are probably people who can't believe your cat always tries, but never succeeds to catch your goldfish or who are riveted by your 3.2 (kudos).
Over the past year the amount of traffic going to Facebook has exploded. So much so that last May it surpassed Google as the most visited website.
Like I said, I think the more people share on Facebook the better. The next major step for Facebook to take is upping the filtration of information that gets to you. While I know this filtration exists (not enough to explain how it works) the surge in traffic has probably just been too much to proportionately compensate for. TMI hasn't always been such a huge problem. Back when people read the news paper the costs of publishing info was so great that only the most "important" information made it through. The cost of publishing information today is so little ($0.00) that the only question is what shouldn't we publish? After all, every empty status update about your cat comes with the potential self esteem boost of somebody commenting on it and reaffirming that someone out there might care about you.
Its no secret that the music industry has been struggling over the past decade. Facing slumping sales at the hands of free downloads and digital distribution chains, people are clamoring to find a way to "save" the industry. I however have a different question, who needs it? Just to clarify, when I say music industry I'm not referring to artists and producers. I'm talking about publishers, distributors, etc. The people who increase the cost of music without increasing the value. In Clay Shriky's book "Here Comes Everybody" he talks about how the collapse of communication and publishing costs are changing the rules about the functions of "professionals" and "amateurs".
When was the last time you saw a squire? No, not the guitar. I'm talking about the squires of ye old times who's job it was to write and transcribe messages. Being a squire was a profession because most people were illiterate. Knowing how to read and write was rare enough to distinguish it as a profession. The invention of the printing press lead to the death of the squire profession. The printing press made language so cheap and easy to reproduce that not only were squires no longer needed to transcribe work, but literature was so available that literacy could be brought to the masses.
Today we are witnessing the slow and painful death of the print industry to digital media. Just as literacy scarcity made the squire profession profitable, the scarcity of publishing and distribution technologies made printing profitable. However today the average person (me) has the ability to publish and distribute their own media for absolutely nothing! I realize that just because A Delicious Blend is free and NY Times costs money people are not going to replace their New York Times subscription with A Delicious Blend. While this may be true, Shirky makes an interesting observation in that digital media is revolutionizing our definition of what news is. When traditional news outlets were our soul source of info "news" was whatever "they" decided was newsworthy. With so much information available to us today "news" now means whatever we want to hear about.
Just like publishers and squires are no longer necessities, neither, in my opinion, are music distributors and publishers. With the ferocious rate of downloading and music blogging we are discovering not only can we do "their" job but we can do it better! As I mentioned in my previous post The Long Tail, Making Your Life Awesome Since 2004 the lowered cost of distribution allows more obscure artists to better reach niche markets. Thanks to music blogs that offer promotional downloads such as ThisSongIsSick.com genres such as Dubstep which do not have much mass appeal but are wildly popular in certain niches can reach new audiences they otherwise never could have. Had such digital distribution channels never existed it is unlikely dubstep enthusiasts such as myself would have ever stumbled across it.
A major point I haven't acknowledged yet is the "free" aspect of distribution. This can be a sensitive subject among many and opinions tend to vary. I think distributing music for free is the best thing to happen to music since the cultural exile of K-Fed. Traditional forms of distribution create bottle necks that only allow for the distribution of artists that companies feel will be most profitable, aka have the most widespread appeal. I have nothing against Justin Timberlake but would prefer a few other options. Distributing music for free may cost Justin Timberlake a few bucks but in the long run enables more artists to make money by not being overshadowed by the bottle neck effect.
In order to both talk the talk and walk the walk, here are some artists I like that I feel deserve some exposure.
I will be the first to say I love advertising. While this may sound strange, consider how advertising allows us to enjoy everything we take for granted as free. It allows us to confidently navigate the internet with Google, watch our favorite TV shows on command with Hulu, and explore artists we would never have found with Pandora. At a certain point though there is a difference between sustaining your business and shamelessly whacking the cash pinata. In a sense ad-sponsored content isn't really free. It still costs you your time and attention, which we all can agree have value. While advertising in print and radio are on the decline, online advertising is exploding and shows no signs of slowing down.
There is still substantial room and incentive for increased online advertising but what does that mean for consumers? Hulu for instance has much less advertising than normal television. While this is true there is substantially more advertising on Hulu than there was a few years ago. The timeless question of "How many advertisements can I add before people stop watching?" prevents content providers from piling on too much. However, in the case of Hulu we already know exactly how much advertising people will tolerate to watch their favorite shows. With so much room for online advertising and consumer's bluffs already being called could we be heading towards the same amount of advertising on Hulu as regularly programed television? I don't think so and here is why.
The reason companies advertise is to reach relative consumers. When a company buys an add on radio or television they only hope it reaches their target consumers. There are ways to help increase exposure to targeted consumers. For example the barrage of pickup truck commercials during NFL games. The problem is that for every person who sees a pickup truck commercial that will never be interested in buying one the company has wasted some of their money and effort. John Wannamaker once said "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half". The beauty of online advertising is that advertisements can be tailored to the people viewing them. Even though the amount of advertising on Hulu is less than that of television the "choose your own ad" feature makes them more effective (therefore requiring less of them) because viewers chose to watch ads that are more relevant to them.
Do you hate those ads on the right side of your Facebook screen? Change them! They are generated based on the interests you list on your profile. In case you haven't noticed, you can x out those ads and Facebook asks you why. If you continually close them and tell Facebook why you chose to do so the ads will become more and more relevant. I've done this to the point where I now find out about concerts, bands and products I love that I never would have found to begin with. Think of it as the Pandora of advertising. It is customization such as this that eliminates the need for overly general advertising. Even if you despise advertisements, wouldn't you rather be killed by a sniper than a shotgun?
As usual, The Onion takes it to a whole new level.
Here's a set of video's I think are hilarious. They really make you question the limitations (or lack there of) of Google. The first and last are my favorites.
As hard as it is for me to believe, I am finally a senior in college. As a senior, I stand excitedly on the brink of that which all students, kindergarten to college, dream of. Having a real job?...eh, Self sufficiency?...nah, Being a contributing member of society?...I'm still not sure what that means. We are talking of course about the big one here...NO HOMEWORK!!!
Since childhood we have dreamt of a homeworkless future. What will we do with such boundless free time? Travel the world? Learn a new language? Watch ALL THE POWER RANGERS WE WANT!? The possibilities seem endless. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but as it turns out there is a such thing as extra school, and everyone is doing it.
The recent financial downturn has prompted a frenzy for graduate degrees. For recent grads looking at one of the toughest job markets in decades, graduate school is a great way to get an edge over the competition while waiting for the market to improve. An MBA is an effective way for candidates to distinguish themselves from the field but as more and more young professionals catch graduate fever what is the result?
Graduate students are traditionally professionals who already have a few years experience in their respective fields. In the past the number of degrees available was limited and degrees were looked upon as prestigious marks of professional excellence. The problem now is we are seeing a dramatic increase in the percentage of MBA applicants going for it right out of college but top 40 schools aren't going to just open more spots. The increase in demand for MBAs amongst college graduates has lead them to consider programs outside the traditional top 40 bracket. Although these programs may be less recognized than the top 40, they still allow students to earn those MBAs they desire for a competitive edge. Students not making the cut for top 40 programs face the dilemma of pursuing a less prestigious program or trying to cut it in the job market for a few years. My question is how much of an advantage do these less recognized MBAs give students?
More graduate students now means a few years down the road there are going to be a lot more professionals with Graduate Degrees. As a soon to be college graduate looking at both the job market and graduate programs, my main concern is what does this increase in MBAs do for their own value? Many say this increase is making graduate degrees the professional standard of the future. The question I pose to the business students of my generation is this: By flooding the future job market with MBAs are we setting a new educational standard or devaluing our own educations?
In the future it is unlikely that an MBA will mean what it does today. Top 40 programs may still hold the prestige of selectivity but what of the rest of us? The distinction of the MBA is that it thins the herd and guarantees employers with a purchase of top shelf talent. As a larger percentage of applicants have MBAs, that guarantee of top tier quality decreases and thus so does the value of a non top 40 MBA.
India has also seen a dramatic increase in the amount of graduate programs and graduate students in the job market. As a result the All India Management Association has created an exam that will "determine whether business school graduates in India are qualified for jobs." Could we be on our way to a bar exam equivalent in the business world?
Are we making MBAs an absolute must or just a blip on our resumes?
A trend has arisen lately that I've been divided on until now. Most of you have already heard of or experienced "Icing" but I will briefly explain it for the culturally numb. Icing refers to a new drinking game that has taken the country by storm where one player "ices" another by surprising him or her (by which I mean him but lets keep it PC) with a Smirnoff Ice. The player presented with the Smirnoff Ice must then get down on one knee and chug it regardless of setting. The only way to avoid being iced is to carry a Smirnoff Ice on you at all times so that upon being iced you can reverse it back onto the other player, forcing them to immediately chug both. Whats new or interesting about a game that involves chugging alcohol? Well we are talking about Smirnoff Ice here, the most universally frowned upon beverage in existence. Originally tagged as a "girly drink", Smirnoff Ice quickly developed into a full blown serving of shame in every bottle. Too girly even for most girls, Smirnoff Ice makes Miller Chill and Mike's Hard Lemonade look like diesel fuel and motor oil. The fun of the game is humiliating whoever the Ice is presented to. I for one would hate having to consume such a drink in public (or private for self esteem reasons).
As much as I enjoy public humiliation. I also love telling myself that I am individual who does not blindly follow trends. After giving this some relatively objective thought I've come out still loving icing. The tipping point for me was a friends facebook status saying "Just saw some kid get iced in penn station..what's better is that he then got id'ed by a cop and got a citation for being under age..I love this game". I can't help but admire the tenacity with which this game is played. Here's an unsuspecting bro being iced in a Las Vegas airport.
The real question is what do the people at Smirnoff think of this? The company denies any involvement in the spreading of the game and I for one believe them. Although they must be excited that the drink is being consumed by somebody, it can't be a great feeling knowing it was your inability to make it cool that lead to its success. Maybe other companies could achieve such success with their own inside out marketing tactics. Perhaps if Buick made even lamer cars hipsters would start buying them and spark a revolution. Maybe fast food thats even worse for you? Oh wait, KFC nailed it
Its that time of the semester. Finals have returned again and I, like most college students am feeling stressed out and anxious about exams. During times like these I like to take a second to curl up on my futon with a hot cup of tea and do something I really love, hate on Glenn Beck. If you've never hated on Glenn Beck before you are really missing out on a rewarding, multifaceted experience. As of late hating on Glenn Beck has become extremely popular amongst the college crowd as well as anyone that has ever seen or heard of Glenn Beck.
For those unfamiliar with Glenn Beck, he hosts his own show on Fox News as well as his own radio show. Glenn is known for his outrageous conservative rhetoric and hysteric rants pertaining mainly to socialism. He makes for a great substitute for those who prefer patriotism to boring stuff like facts and analytic thought.
Back in high school my friends and I used to hang out and hate on Bill O'Reilly all the time. It wasn't hard to get into. He went to our high school, was extremely arrogant, and quite the blow-hard. I know now that this is a gateway hatred that can lead to hating on more ignorant and over the top conservative pundits such as Sean Hannity or, dare I say it, Glenn Beck. Now I could easily hate on Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity right now but lets face it, why ride the tea cups when there's a seat on the roller coaster?
If you are a first time hater I would definitely advise you to hate on Glenn Beck with a group of friends you know you can trust with some content that isn't too strong. Here would be a good place to start.
I know what you are thinking "But Mark hating on Glenn Beck sounds so awesome I just wanna jump in with both feet!" This is a typical first timer mistake. Over-hating on Glenn Beck can lead to deeply sad revelations about modern society and life in general. If you realize while hating on Glenn Beck that there are millions of people out there simultainiously nodding their heads and taking him seriously you may plunge into an immediate and potentially irreversible loss of hope for humanity. This is why its good for first timers to hate amongst friends. If group members feel the sentiment behind the jokes becoming too morbid they can usually turn it around with a comment like "ha, what a bunch of hicks". This brings me to another potential danger of hating on Glenn Beck, classism.
Hating on Glenn Beck inevitably begs the question "Who the hell could take this asshole seriously?" One of the reasons this can be so upsetting is because he projects his act upon a very precise demographic (or stereotype) of people, mainly the type who might have bumper stickers that involve some mix of guns, freedom and our lord and savior. I won't go further into the details of this danger but I beg you to be wary of it. A great way to help divert yourself from such impulses is to focus more on what a douchebag he is. This video does a great job.
Sometimes hating on Glenn Beck is best left up to the professionals. Comedic news sources such as The Daily Show or The Onion are great because they have a team of brilliant writers who are much funnier than your lame ass friends. In addition to phenominal writing these programs also have the resources to pay people to filter through the excessive amounts of Glenn Beck material so you only get 100% pure conservative rhetoric.
Thats it. It's all done. I'm selling out and finally retiring. Today I registered for Google Adsense, which means any day now adds will pop up on this site and the money will come rolling in. Mark since you'll be rich will you buy me a sports car? Relax, I'm sure I'll buy several. Last year Google pulled in $6.78 billion in revenue so I assume I'll make around that much.
Google Adsense is essentially what makes Google Google. Once this site is approved some small adds will be put on the page and for every time they are clicked I will get paid and Google will get paid. Because I directly stand to benefit I'm not legally allowed to ask people to click the links. Click fraud has actually become a huge problem in the e-commerce marketplace. Massive amounts of people have been hired before for the soul purpose of clicking up competitor costs. What makes click fraud so hopelessly unsolvable is that those who are supposed to police it (Google) are the ones who stand to benefit. Thats like the police making 50% on every bank robbery. Believe it or not Google has also noticed this and has coincidentally been involved in multiple multi-million dollar click fraud lawsuits.
This is one of my favorite commercials ever. A lot of companies try to play the same products off as being new or different. Here Burger King admits upfront that they blatantly stole the idea.
This is completely off topic but mandates a post. If you use Stumble you may have already seen these but they are unbelievable. Below are 3D drawings done with sidewalk chalk by Julian Beever.
I can't help but wonder if he got paid for any product placement on these last two.
