An Irreverent Guide to Judgement Day 2011

Posted on May 21, 2011 by Craig Ormiston

Through an aggressive marketing campaign, Harold Camping has forewarned via Christian broadcasting network Family Radio that today is “Judgement Day.” Even though the Bible has been published for centuries, God is only just now “opening up His Word because we have arrived at the time of the end.” With the “Biblical Timeline of History” and the “correct method of Bible interpretation” at hand, Camping determined today’s significance through a string of compounded assumptions:

The earth was created in 11,013 BC (13,000 years ago, when mankind first practiced agriculture).
Noah’s Flood began on May 21, 4990 B.C., per the Hebrew calendar (Genesis 7:11).
Christ was crucified on April 1, 33 A.D (April fools, sucka!).
Biblical reference to a single day is actually reference to a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8).
Therefore, Judgement Day would occur 7,000 years after the flood (Genesis 7:4). [Note that the same passage alludes to the floods lasting 40 days and 40 nights. So what’s going to happen in 40,000 years? God will retire?]
There are 365.2422 days in a complete year, according to astronomers (who also determined that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, but who’s counting).

Beyond those anchor assumptions, the variables in his calculations to reach May 21, 2011, are based entirely on biblical number symbolism. For a mind-numbing breakdown of Camping’s math, read his “infallible proof” (I suggest you trip acid first, you might actually be able to follow his genius).

According to Camping’s prophecy, true believers will be beamed up to Heaven today. Apparently, reading the Bible is your ticket to salvation: “God has always saved people through the hearing of His Word” (a crafty publisher sales pitch, wouldn’t you say?). As a “fuck you” gift to the rest of us left behind, a massive doomsday earthquake was supposed to start at 6 p.m. on the International Date Line, move west, and unearth corpses everywhere. Just in case you missed it, nothing happened. But if you are still here tomorrow, that does not mean the prophecy was wrong; prepare yourself for five months of hell until October 23, 2011, when the atmosphere will pop and solar radiation will toast us all (2 Peter 3:10).

Judgement Day street teams in Hollywood, who quit their jobs and families to preach the word, were taking salvation so seriously this week that they spent a lot of time discussing the quality of meat in their tacos and smoking pot. Harold Camping already predicted that September 6, 1994, would be the big day and convinced a lot of people to go along with it. But alas, his calculations were wrong. Oh well, Round 2. I give Camping credit for a strong 2011 marketing campaign, but nothing more. Family Radio has reached 66 stations across the United States and 61 languages globally; I can only imagine how much publicity traffic he has generated through his latest movement. I am very tolerant of most people and their philosophies, but I do not tolerate fear mongering in any form. Dear God, please rapture Camping and his believers (in their favor, mind you) so that we can return to reason and actually get some bills passed in Congress. Amen.

Family Radio aside, there has been a lot of apocalyptic talk lately. Sure, times are tough. But do not overanalyze, dear reader. Economic collapse, climate change, crime, wars, disease, famine, and natural disasters are not uncommon in history. Without question, we need to be better shepherds of our planet. But rampant paranoia will do us no good. I suppose the Mayan calendar, global warming, nuclear holocaust, alien invasion, dark matter, and zombies may all be plausible, but there’s no way to know for sure. All we can do is live and love life as if every day were our last. Take radicals with a grain of salt.

Film Friday: Power to the Theaters

Posted on May 20, 2011 by Craig Ormiston

In the good ol’ days, content was king. Producers and publishers thrived off of the complexity, scarcity, and cost of generating and distributing entertainment. Very few people could publish a book, record an album, or produce a theatrical feature film. Times have changed. Through the commodification of consumer production tools and publishing platforms, content generation and distribution are easier than ever. The result? Far too much noise. Public discourse is completely cluttered by personal voice. To whom should you listen?

Ears and eyeballs are in high demand. Seth Godin said, “We don’t have an information shortage; we have an attention shortage.” Content is no longer king. Attention is king. Those who command the respect of the masses command the value of entertainment product. Content Producers are less powerful than ever. Content Curators, like companies and critics who drive discoverability and promote entertainment traffic, are taking the cake. Warner Bros. demonstrated a progressive value in discovery platforms through the purchase of Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes. Systems like Netflix, Pandora and YouTube that navigate consumers through targeted entertainment are dominating the market. As the library of public content continues to grow, so too will the value proposition of these companies.

Platforms are the near future. Traditional theaters need to wake up and smell the opportunity. As it stands, film exhibitors are little more than the leashed pets of the movie business – completely at the whim of their masters. If theaters take liberties to curate, program, and leverage alternative product against the studios, their value to the average consumer will increase tenfold. The quality of entertainment will increase, revenues will increase, and cultural sophistication will increase. Theater owners know their communities well and should play an active role in curating entertainment. Curator Exhibitors (theaters) need to earn the respect of local audiences by consistently screening top-notch entertainment and communitizing outside Hollywood.

Where Did Apprenticeships Go?

Posted on May 19, 2011 by Craig Ormiston

In the Middle Ages, master and apprentice relationships were integral to business. Aspiring youngsters would offer continuing labour and business support to veteran craftsman in exchange for lodging, food, and formal training. Before universities popularized, trade education stemmed directly from experience in the trade itself. As classroom education expanded, apprenticeships fell to the wayside. Can someone please tell me why? The mentor and apprentice relationship is no less integral to business than it was a thousand years ago. In fact, I think the relationship may be more important today – for both sides of the table.

The mutual benefits are endless, but here are four key points to whet your whistle (Note: I find “Mentor” more palatable than “Master,” but the same theory applies):

Mentors offer seasoned experience. Apprentices offer fresh perspective.

With years of service in the workplace, the mentor has war stories and lessons that can better-frame an apprentice’s education. More importantly, these stories are experienced firsthand. On-the-job training is far more vivid and dynamic than book studies because the stakes are higher. Apprentices get their hands dirty and glean a far more richer understanding of their craft in the process. Moreover, the education is reciprocal. Apprentices bring to the table a whole new way of thinking: contemporary models, innovative market approach tactics, modern brand image insights, and more. The apprentice speaks a fresh language mentors need to be versed in today to connect with the consumers of tomorrow.

Mentors offer inexpensive education. Apprentices offer inexpensive labour.

As a mutual service favor, very little money trades hands. A mentor can staff his or her growing business with a zealous and thirsty student without the burden of salary; an apprentice can get invaluable hands-on experience without the burden of tuition. More often than not, the education from a mentor is far more in-depth, targeted and pertinent than from a classroom teacher. You get more value for less spend.

Mentors offer relevant trade skills. Apprentices offer relevant modern skills.

Unlike the intimate hands-on apprenticeships of old, modern internships are often more clerical with little exposure to the higher workings of a company or trade. A true apprenticeship can bring students closer to the skills they need to grasp and aim to learn. In exchange, apprentices can introduce mentors to new methods for leveraging technology, connecting with people, and creating product. The opportunities are boundless with both new and old at the helm.

Mentors offer a name brand. Apprentices offer brand vitality.

Through years of service and loyalty, the apprentice will embrace the mentor’s brand. With that brand comes the mentor’s network and resource pool, saving the apprentice a lot of time and money developing his or her own from scratch. Brands are noteworthy bullets on resumes and form the connective tissue of the business world. In return for the mentor’s gracious stamp of approval, the apprentice will forever carry all the philosophies adopted and lessons learned from the mentor. The mentor’s reputation will live on through the apprentice.

The only potential risks I foresee in apprenticeships are compatibility and working pace. Some people cannot see eye to eye and lack patience for one another. Compatibility can be offset by both formal and casual interviews, along with recommendations and referrals. And unlike the Middle Ages, I do not think it wise to start apprenticeships too early in career development; an apprentice needs strong theoretical introduction to a trade first before asking a mentor for valuable time.

If you are a seasoned professional, I highly encourage you to take on an apprentice. If you are a student, develop relationships with professionals in your field of interest and ask permission to shadow them. Listen well to each other. After a while, you will both learn a lot. I guarantee it.

5 Ways Standing Improves Office Culture

Posted on May 17, 2011 by Craig Ormiston

Today’s guest post is by great friend and fellow USC classmate Drew Moxon. Drew is an entrepreneur and interactive storyteller, currently working as a Producer on the Gears of War franchise at Microsoft Game Studios. He is a master at connecting people and using technology as a social lubricant. Today, he offers a particularly progressive idea on updating the workplace:

Enter Drew Moxon:

There has been much to-do recently about the health benefits of standing while working. The body is not used to sitting for such long periods at a time, something we never had the evolutionary need to do until the widespread use of personal computers. While standing at work can be great for you physically, its impact on business culture – your organization’s psychology – can be even greater.

I’ve been standing at work for just over a month now, and the change in mindset that has accompanied the new physical routine has possibly outweighed the health benefits. Along with increased energy (slouching in a chair has this incredible power of sucking the life out of you), here are some of the behavioral improvements it can yield in an organization:

1. A mobilized workforce is more likely to solve problems socially

Standing-working encourages social behavior in the workplace by eliminating barriers to moving around – mainly the physical and psychological act of standing up. Most times, an issue is easier to resolve in person than it is over email or IM. Yet, when we have the tools right in front of us, which is more likely to be the norm if we’re already sitting? Walking over to a co-worker (or two or three) can save you time, de-clutter your inbox, and strengthen your team.

2. Increased movement cultivates a proactive culture

Email allows us to put our issues in someone else’s court temporarily – it’s not in my inbox, so I don’t have to worry about it yet. With more movement and in-person interaction also comes the idea that you are responsible for gathering any information necessary and getting buy-in from others.

3. Activity becomes transparent

When everyone is sitting at their desk all day, activity appears the same; a top-performer is nearly indistinguishable from an underachiever. When movement is encouraged, however, it quickly becomes apparent who is actively engaged in their work and who is not. Seeing your coworkers move around and socialize can encourage you to do the same.

4. Face to face correspondence thickens social bonds

Because of the nuances in body language, facial emotions, and spacial cues that internet communications lack (even video to an extent), we are not only able to communicate more effectively, but also fraternize more regularly.

5. Freedom of movement, freedom of thought

When a team is able to flow organically according to in-the-moment needs and unconstrained by their desk chairs, many more ‘innovation moments’ happen – when you run into a co-worker and discover something that can be improved by working together. Having the ability to easily walk away from a problem you’re stuck on and approach it from a different angle presents a huge advantage.

There are only a few of us standing professionals. Imagine your workplace with the whole team standing, bustling around like an open-air market. What impact would it have on your organization’s culture?

Keep It Short

Posted on May 16, 2011 by Craig Ormiston

Why do you think Twitter became so popular?

Brevity is a modern weapon.

Don’t waste time. Others will thank you for it.

How America Can Reclaim First Place

Posted on May 15, 2011 by Craig Ormiston

Can you imagine traveling six days by horse in a blizzard to hang out with peers and talk politics? Can you imagine waking up to a trumpet, grabbing your gun and running outside to join other armed neighbors to defend your cul-de-sac? Can you imagine hiding in your basement with friends for fear of your life and plotting a bloody revolution? These activities were commonplace 250 years ago at the birth of our nation. Early Americans went to great lengths to come together, stand as one, and protect our freedoms. The value of togetherness networked local communities, rallied the majority against common enemies, and united the colonies.

Somewhere between the Cold War and postdevelopment, Americans lost site of that camaraderie. We lost site of togetherness. Back then, the freedom to assemble was a huge deal – so important that it topped the list of our constitutional amendments. Today, I see a lot of ambition and very little group collaboration. Few people stand collectively behind anything except brands and religion (and even those groups are fading).

We need to come together again. We need to debate again. We need to start a cultural revolution again. And like all great movements in history, the era of neo-togetherness starts small: spend more time with friends. Spend time discussing how you think the world should look. Spend time making suggestions and outlining solutions. And if you are brave enough, spend time tackling those solutions together.

Our great country evolved through community. Only a strong community can keep it alive.

Erase ‘Maybe’ From Your Vocabulary

Posted on May 14, 2011 by Craig Ormiston

Commit, commit with stipulations, or don’t commit at all. ‘Maybe’ leads people on and only procrastinates the real answer. ‘Maybe’ hardly answers the question and forces you into an awkward corner where you ultimately have to decide. ‘Maybe’ usually means ‘no’ anyway, so why not be honest?

You will disappoint people more by leading them on and saying ‘no’ later than if you just say ‘no’ now. And who knows? Say ‘no’ now and they might return with a better deal.

Decide. Stop wasting people’s time. Stop wasting your own time. Yes or no?

Film Friday: Bring Down the Silos

Posted on May 13, 2011 by Craig Ormiston

Hollywood is divided by motion picture form: feature films, television, interactive and new media. These “divisions” can be further split into narrative and non-narrative, scripted or reality, short and long-form, franchise or micro-budget, professional or prosumer, etc. Some companies even divide content departments by genre. All of these worlds are segregated into silos, and it is very difficult for filmmakers and executives alike to migrate between them.

I find the rigidity amusing; while aesthetic sensibilities may be slightly different, the gear and roleplaying needed to produce each are now essentially the same. Aside from budget, which varies widely from project to project (not necessarily from format to format), there is only one relevant fundamental difference between each of these production types: story structure.

Some stories play better in the short form; others over hundreds of hours. Some can be broken into episodic pieces and spread out; others should be consumed in one sitting. Some play better on the big screen with large audiences; others on small screens alone in your living room. Some should be passively consumed and others interactively. It all depends on the characters, the situation and the journey at hand. Unfortunately, most companies in the industry approach storytelling backasswards: choose the form first and try to build a narrative for it. Squeezing a square peg into a round hole. Unnatural. It should be the other way around – develop characters first and then pick a format that best tells their story.

Major studios have mobility between formats to a degree, but only make the effort with franchises. To make matters worse, studios regularly attempt to spread each franchise thinly across ALL formats and mediums simultaneously to milk the cow dry. Moreover, the golden goose sits in the theatrical box office – most production companies aspire to author 90-page scripts to entertain large audiences through feature-length events in multiplexes worldwide. I can appreciate the spiritual power of consuming content beside large audiences in the theater space; I do not think the industry or exhibitors need to be so myopic as to distribute features exclusively in this space.

I contend that there is a healthy market for episodic content in the theatrical space. I am one of the few people who think Harry Potter would have played better as an episodic television show (with each season framed by a school year). The films themselves omitted far too much to satisfy audiences thoroughly. By stretching the 2 hour format to 15 or 20 hours, there would have been much more room to explore the characters and lore of the world J.K. Rowling created on page. And with select or all episodes being streamed into theaters weekly for supplemental revenue, the box office could have collected as many as 100 movie tickets per audience member throughout the weekly run of the seven year show. A wild idea, but why not? Expensive? Yes. Risky? Maybe, but less so with a loyal, young and international fanbase. Profitable? Hell yes. Open your mind, Hollywood. There is a lot more money to be made with creative mobility.

Motion picture formats are homogenizing, both on a technical and talent level. The movie industry should experiment with form, untangle from the guild restrictions, break down the silos and be a little more anarchistic about formats. Hollywood needs to be honest with itself and its audiences.

Let your characters tell you how long your story should be and then budget accordingly.

Small Plate Dining

Posted on May 12, 2011 by Craig Ormiston

I was raised to spend money on two things: travel and food. The latter I do everyday and with zeal. I love food more than almost anything else and treat it like a religious hobby.

But like everyone, I appreciate a good deal. Dining out does not always carry a high value proposition over cooking at home. I cannot rationalize spending $12 on an Italian pasta when I can make it with ease at home for $3. I can, however, rationalize spending money on a multi-course, ingredient diverse meal that is too grocery-list intensive, time consuming and costly to prepare on my own.

It is feasible on a normal night to prepare at most three dishes for a meal at home. I expect at least that many when going out to eat. The conventional American orders one entree when dining out. Unless it took 24 hours to prepare or imported some exotic ingredient from a land very far away, I often cannot justify spending double digits on a single entree. At the very least, I need to share entrees with other people. The more, the merrier!

Small Plate Dining.

Tapas José Andrés is often credited for bringing small plate dining to the states. More common in Europe, small plate dining embraces the “a little bit of everything” philosophy by offering many dishes too small to sustain an entire meal. The result? You order multiple dishes per sitting and make an entire meal out of appetizer-sized portions. Antipasti and tapas are common on menus and in wine bars where sampling and tasting is a virtue. If you order correctly, you end up with a broad culinary experience nearly impossible and far too expensive to replicate on your own. I will not hesitate to drop three figures on a meal if it presents a large dynamic range of flavors and diverse composition of ingredients.

Research your nearest tapas bar. Show your taste buds a party!

—-

Image by Ana Ulin, via Wikimedia Commons.

Craig Ormiston

A daily thought on life, business, film and tech

Monthly Archives: May 2011

An Irreverent Guide to Judgement Day 2011

Film Friday: Power to the Theaters

Where Did Apprenticeships Go?

5 Ways Standing Improves Office Culture

Keep It Short

Erase ‘Maybe’ From Your Vocabulary

Film Friday: Bring Down the Silos

Small Plate Dining

Share:

Share:

Share:

Share:

Share:

Share:

Share:

Share:

Share:

Share: