jr conlin's ink stained banana

i don't think you're getting it.

Dear Ad People,

Please shut up.

Seriously. i'm fairly certain that i'm now seeing far more ads for things than i was growning up. i say this because i'm equally certain that i never once shouted out "Red Rover, Red Rover, Send someone fueled by Gatorade brand sports drink on over!". Likewise, i'm equally certain that news operations actually contained more news than ads (a point that i was well raised by the seven commercial breaks in the final 15 minutes of last night's evening news.

See, the problem is that ads are a diminishing commodity. Ads succeed by doing two things: Getting my attention and Establishing a buying decision. Blasting me continuously with them actually does the opposite. i establish patterns that allow me to ignore the ads (i change channels, i run blockers, i "tune out" the text blocks, etc.), and no, there's nothing you can do to change that the same way that there's nothing i can do to prove to you that running a 100% ad blocker is the bestest thing ever.

Of course, you know that.

You know that because you consistently see ad revenues drop the longer a given ad runs. It has less impact which means that you're willing to pay less and less for it. (Thus the whole "diminishing" part of the "diminishing commodities".) What really sucks is that since ads were sold as the be-all/end-all of funding, ad based systems are scrambling to cover diminishing revenue streams by increasing the number of ads i see (e.g. last nights news).

Can't we come to some sort of agreement here? Seriously? Look, i know you really want me to buy a few 64oz tubs of Johnston's Miracle Butt Crack Creme, but maybe if you set up some sort of presence near where i might actually make that sort of purchasing decision, i'd perhaps be more receptive rather than try to figure out how to change the channel over dinner.

You know what i'd think would be a perfect world? If companies felt compelled to make "enough" money, instead of "more" money. You know the difference. "Enough" means that you're company covers it's costs, puts aside some cash for R&D and upkeep, and maybe even has a little profit for things like Holiday Parties. It's notable how many companies are in that position right now, and can control costs by doing silly things like dropping underperforming products in favor of better performing ones.

Nah, i know, it'll never happen, but it's a nice dream. Plus i'm thinking that the constant, non-sequitor interruption we're exposing ourselves to is what's leading more and more people to be more and more distracted. We can't focus on anything for longer than 30 seconds anymore because we simply are never given the chance to do it.

(Oh and before folks get all high-and-mighty about how i should solve this problem by not watching TV, i'll note that radio, newspapers, magazines, the web and every other form of revenue generated media does the same thing.)

One of the countless things i hate about yearly reviews is the "peer-review" part. The problem i have is coming up with a list of folks that i've worked with who can talk about the things i've done. It's like being asked to come up with a list of five friends as well as five fellow employees.

Sure, it's easy to rattle off the folks i always work with, but that's pretty isolated. Then again, that's actually how i tend to be.

i mean, sure i blog and write and i'm fairly social, but i tend to be a loner. i work on a lot of projects alone. i do a lot of hacks alone. Heck, i often even each lunch alone. There's a lot of reasons for that, but i keep thinking that everyone else must be far more social than i am. Well, until i ask them.

Maybe we tend to clump together, but a lot of folks i casually talk to seem to have this same problem. They have kids, projects, and other things that kinda get in the way of hanging out at Bob's.

Ah well, at least i have you, random and semi-faceless internet people.

At least i think i do.

Please don't shatter my delusions.

Employed.

No, i tried that last year and was told that “i wasn't aiming high enough”.

It was a fair statement, since personal career growth is always important to any company, since, well, they always feel compelled to ask that question every year. Plus, being named Time's Person of the Year 2006 raises the bar a tad. i should aim higher.

Fine. i can do that.

In five years, i'd like to be in a position of authority. Ideally, with a team beneath me. A loyal team of individuals who will follow my guidance and leadership without question.

And they'd wear matching jumpsuits and helmets.

Granted, i probably should refrain from standing on the table and shouting “Fools! Soon you'll be under my crushing domain!” at upper management at least until they agree to dig out the volcano island, but i can solice myself with bemused chuckling and highlighting key inquisition techniques and fashion modeling histories for my future, shapely “Number One”.

i suspect my key future challenges will involve meddlesome agents of foreign governments insisting on foiling my secretive plans. These, of course, will be easily dispatched by dangling the so-called “hero” over a large tank filled with mind controlled sharks. A large clock would count down the final minutes as the hero struggled when, minutes before zero, a minion executes him with a single shot from a high powered rifle. Hey, drama's good for the staff and those sharks don't feed themselves, you know.

Oh sure, i fully expect my ultimate plans to be foiled with only seconds to spare, and there's always the possibility of massive loss of human life, but we're making omlettes here.

Phew. That's far more interesting than just “being an active and contributing employee”.

It almost makes that question less annoying.

Buzz Donuts.

Donuts. With caffeine.

About two coffee cups full of it in each donut.

That you'll probably have with coffee to begin with.

Created by a scientist.

JIM? i'm looking at you, buddy-boy.

i always feel a little sorry whenever some folks give a talk at work.

Today, someone showed up to present her ideas of radically changing corporate philosophy. She was bright eyed, and since she founded a company to promote the idea, very evangelical about how this was the absolute bestest thing in the whole wide world. Although i got to the meeting late, i pretty much got the meat of the presentation.

It was good. She brought up a lot of great points, with compelling arguments and even managed to answer my question by side stepping it enough for me and everyone else to get the actual answer (and no, it wasn't that bad an answer either). Hey, i'm anti-evangelist. It's what i do.

Still, for the effort and sales pitch she was giving, i couldn't help but look around to the dozen or so individuals in the room and realize one over-riding truth.

Absolutely nobody in the room could do anything about what she was presenting.

She was talking to the wrong audience. She needed to talk to folks who most likely wouldn't be sitting on stackable chairs eating their lunch out of a white cafeteria box and wondering if they could get a few minutes out of the UED guys for a couple of ideas they had. She needed to be talking to the guys with titles that begin with a capital C. As it was, she had basically shown up in town and started telling the peasants how to best run the fiefdom. Of course we're going to agree and love the idea.

We'd also love free ice cream.