Top of The Table Clash: Manchester United vs Chelsea April 3rd 2010

Isn't this blog for business purposes only? Yes indeed. Then how can you possibly be discussing the English Premier League? Let alone the likes of Manchester United? These are all good questions.

Firstly, you may have guessed from my anti-ManU sentiment that I'm a level-headed and pragmatic Chelsea FC fan. Is there really any other kind? Don't answer that! But in all honesty, Chelsea is so much more than a team. We represent diversity. We represent solidarity. We represent a dream so much greater than just football. From the Russian-born orphan-turned-tycoon: Abramovich, to the superstar 'de Côte d'Ivoire', namely Drogba, we are a delicate balance of commercial solidarity and cultural diversity. Throw in a Lampard, and mix in a Terry with a side dish of Deco, and you not only have a sumptuous spectacle to dazzle the eyes but a tabloid-selling powerhouse that puts the largesse of Lindsay Lohan to shame. Shall I go on?

To illuminate my first proposed conundrum regarding the nature of this blog, may I refer you to the mirror. Take a long hard look at yourself. Now ask yourself this: Have you not noticed that the English Premier League is a commercial entity attracting millions upon millions of broadcast and sponsorship pounds, dollars- whatever your flavour- for years upon years?

The English Premier League is a dynasty. Without a doubt, it is easily the most lucrative association football league in the globe. In 2007/08 the league saw its revenues increase to nearly £2 billion, amidst a global downturn. Adding to this, the candidature of the owners is a spectacle in itself: with the likes of Chelsea's Roman Abramovich, Fulham's Mohamed Al-Fayed, and Manchester United's Malcolm Glazer, the backdrop the the on-field spectacular is followed closely by off-field press monster that surrounds the dealings and politics of private ownership. It's a fascinating phenomenon to behold.

So when it comes to a end-of-season title clash- the stakes have never been higher. I'm tempted to analyse the technical aspects of the game in consideration of Rooney's absence, and the recent red-hot goal scoring form of both teams. I'm so very tempted but I won't. But I will say this: there is not another occasion where the spotlight and pressure will be on both players and coaches to perform.

With all due hatred and animosity, it's difficult to argue with the longevity and uber-consistent performance of Sir Alex Ferguson. For Chelsea FC the new-season-new-coach phenomenon will again be put to the test. How interesting it would be to listen in on the pre-match talk in either of the dressing rooms. I can only imagine Sir Alex giving a knowing glance to Vidic. This knowing look is understood and simple. Take out Drogba, 'we don't pay you for your looks or even your consistent form'. 'I don't care what you do just get the job done' is the understanding.

In the Chelsea sheds the players look to Drogba and say with their eyes: we know you are going to dive; but at least if you do, get in the box and make it look good. Drogba's smile grows larger, knowing full well that if ever shafted from the squad he has a long career ahead in the 3 meter springboard. Terry will no doubt be integral. Having said this, if he leaves the field early we can safely say he is running late for Jerry Springer. "Terry! Terry! Terry!"

April 3 will be a telling day. It will be an important match. No doubt, the loser faces an improbably uphill battle to gain the 2009/10 title, and the winner will most likely carry the momentum to trophy-raising elation.

May the best team win. Long live Abramovich! Game On!

ROI: A Tale of Two Films

Return on investment: abbreviated to 'ROI', usually given as a percentage of an initial investment, and usually unrealistically high.

These projected returns are generally not to be trusted and mostly for good reason. Why? Mainly, as they most commonly emerge in the context on a vendor attempting to sell a business or asset- in which case, they (being the opportunistic agents for sale) will be wanting more than they can reasonably expect to achieve in dollar terms, but at least if they can spit out a palatable ROI, they can justify the attempted extortion- or, if all else fails, begin speaking about the vague notion of goodwill.

Now as I temporarily toss my skepticism under my bed alongside the dirty washing, let us get down to business- specifically, ROI in the context of two films: Paranormal Activity and Funny People.

In the spirit of keeping things simple, there will be no talk of the balance sheet nor depreciation of assets, we are talkin' 'cost of production' and 'revenue', and we are talkin' in US dollars. It's that simple.

Frankly, I don't go to the cinemas to watch any form of motion picture too often. This is not to suggest I do not have an appreciation for all things motion- I like driving, snowboarding, even plain walking. Truth be told, I have a fascination with film. This fascination, however, if kept carefully in tact by an opposing strong disdain (notice I chose a more emotionally-imbued word than 'dislike') for bad films. Whether this exists in the form of poor acting, storyline, chichéd scripting, or the obvious-incidence of a writer/director attempting to do too much- I have proven multiple times that I will walk out of the cinema, literally.

The most recent occurrence of the 'walk out' was during Judd Apatow's 2009 film "Funny People"starring Adam Sandler, amongst a seemingly competent cast ensemble including Seth Rogen and Eric Bana. According to boxofficemojo.com this film had a production budget of $75 million and so far has yet to exceed the $65 million in worldwide revenue. This is without included marketing and distribution costs which, needless to say, would add many more millions to the break-even point. So why the miserable failure? Good question... and easy to answer.

I'm not sure if Sandler subscribes to the same school as Seinfeld in openly declaring an inability to act, but maybe he should. On the other hand, maybe he wasn't acting? The film is characterized as a comedy-drama (the first giveaway that things were going downhill) and involves a tedious plot whereby a comedian (played by Sandler) suffers from a form of lonely depression that cannot be bolstered by any means of materiality nor womanizing.

My question is this: when has comedy ever gone with drama? Now, I am all up for innovation in the creative process, but surely you have to draw the line somewhere! Maybe the direction sought some kind of interesting dichotomy, the likes of which could rival the sweat-and-sours of this world. But there was not light bulb moment here. Instead, the dualistic scripting can be most easily analogized as oil and water. You don't use water to lubricate an engine, and you don't drink oil. Whilst I'm more than willing to be proven wrong, comedy and drama need to maintain their distance. The courting period is over. There is no chemistry.

So financially speaking, Funny People was a flop. Critically, the reviews were mixed. Personally, I walked out before seeing Eric Bana- who I am still convinced did not star in this film at all. It was released onto DVD and Blu-ray in November 2009. Hopefully, from a business perspective, it is able to recoup some of its financial losses. ROI speaking, there was no return on investment. There was a massive loss, very much unlike director Apatow's previous effort with "Knocked Up" which was produced for $33 million and grossed over $219 million at the box office.

If I could now turn my attention to some paranormal activity in the box office, we will discuss Oren Peli's descriptively-titled "Paranormal Activity" that was released in the US in October 2009 with a reported budget of a mere $15,000, excluding marketing costs.

Peli's film grossed more than $100 million in the US alone and, to date, is thought to hold the record for the greatest return on investment for any film in history. The previous unofficial record holder was the Blair Witch Project.

The plot was not complicated. The filming was largely confined to one fixed tripod-shot set on night vision in Katie and Micah's (two main actors) bedroom, recording supernatural 'activity' that occurred during the night.

Patrons will see a film for many reasons. Often, the actors are the draw card. Sometimes, the director has the 'pull'.

But this was the first time I had ever seen a film based on return on investment- and I am sure I am not alone on this one.

What is the lesson to be learned here? I thank one of my high school mathematics teachers for this one. Kiss. Keep it simple stupid.

Forget about elaborate genre mixes or complicated story lines. Indeed, it is argued that genius internet viral marketing was the key behind Paranormal's dominance at the box office; but equally, without an intoxicating simplicity of "the scariest film ever made" or a simple "you won't be able to sleep at night after this", no viral assistance would have carried this to box office superstardom.

Marketing is like Ice-cream

In times of economic buoyancy it seems that the marketing profession is where it's at. Mind the slang. When times are good, budgets are big and spending is king. You have to spend money to make money, right? Absolutely! Where your imagination can see, the marketing budget can drive you there- and we are talking first class. Summarise: in the upswing the last thing you are thinking about is keeping your receipts.

Dream with me for a moment... You have just consumed a sumptuous seafood meal and the waiter confidently approaches with the dessert menus. Smiles are exchanged and the ice-cream is on its way. Now its not question of "does icecream go with seafood?" Because anyone who is anyone will know that ice-cream can go with anything. Full stop. Backspace. Comma... And there is always room for ice-cream! No questions about that... But..

"Marketing is like ice-cream."

But what happens when the bubble bursts and the economic milk turns sour? What happens to marketing machine? If people stop buying ice-cream, where does it go? What does it do? Will somebody think about the ice-cream! But seriously, it begs the question: what is the actual skill-set of a marketer?

1. Sales ability. Now this is a tricky one. There are those who consider marketing and sales as virtual synonyms. On the other foot, there are those who, if you even begin to utter the "S" word in any vague reference to their job description, will shut you down like Mike Myers with a bad case of the Dr Evils. The latter consider those in sales to be the proletariat of the business world, whereas 'they' form the more intellectual and holistic bourgeoisie of the 'integrated marketing approach'. The bourgeoisie are afraid get pragmatic and numerical and prefer to talk in the guise of "solutions" and "client expectations". Give me a break!

As it turns out I subscribe to the school of innate sales ability. You are either born with it or you are not. True, many a cold-calling over-the-phone stock market scam has prevailed on the resumé of well-scripted-rebuttal-tested exploits. But it's the real 'players'- the Jordan Belfort (Wolf of Wall Street) kinds- who are bringing in the real dollars.

So the answer is 'no'. No, salesmanship is not a consistent characteristic attributable to a "marketer". On the other hand, maybe it should be. But all personal opinions aside, is sales ability synonymous with marketing? Is apple synonymous with orange? I'll let you fill in the gaps.

2. Creativity. So you own a copy of Photoshop. Big woop. Pink parrot. Can I get a "who cares!" Creativity is another one of those innate skills. If you were given a list of 10 friends and were asked to tick 'yes' or 'no' to creativity, it would not take you long. It's a no-brainer. So is it unrealistic to think 'marketer' and assume "creativity"? Yes. Sure, marketing can be a very creative field and for those agencies who can harness the (often) dreamy big-picture kinds or the "I'd like that header in a light teal.. No! That's clearly bubblegum or at the very least a very sick looking emerald!" kinds. But chances are you will spend more time arguing over why Creative Julien (who likes to be known as CJ as it turns out) is late every day and never cleans his desk. Did I get a little carried away? Yes. Is my point made? Let me make it simple: creativity is another skill-set that (unfortunately) cannot be assumed in a 'marketer".

3. Communications ability. This one is tough to define. So let's keep it simple. One thing that is guaranteed in any marketing organisation or position is this: marketing does not occur in isolation. Now whether you are running a meeting of eight project managers; negotiating the finer details with the creative team; trying to prioritise your press release info with PR; or, attempting to convince the receptionist to run out to grab you a 'better coffee' than the office instant (I shudder at the thought), then you are exercising you communications ability. This is an essential tenet of the marketing skill-set.

In my mind, this is what makes marketers such unique creations. Believe it or not, there was was method to the madness that saw you constantly assembled into "groups" at your educational institution. This is a such a crucial skill-set I'm tempted to leave it alone- cynical observation-free. *I'm biting my tongue*...

I retrace to my original thought with more conviction and clarity. Marketing is indeed like ice-cream.

"Gastronomically speaking, its the good stuff that fills in the gaps."

What happens when ice-cream is left out? That's right? It melts.

Marketers are the chameleons of the business world. They fill in the gaps. They translate information between audiences at lightning speed. They learn fast... And whilst neither salesmanship nor creativity can be assumed or guaranteed, what CAN be guaranteed is "if I cant design that myself, then I can find somebody who can.. Don't worry I'll take care of it".

Imagine if you had the trio: salesmanship, creativity, and communications skills.. you would be unstoppable. Now THAT is where it's at.

Charlie the Unicorn: Getting down to business

Let's face it, there is a lot of terrible video material on youtube. Straight up, I'm not saying this is a bad thing: it's part of the fascination; and, if you're in the right mood- usually overly tired and somewhat delerious- then a poorly-edited cartoon or music vid can be just what you need to lift those spirits. And then there was Charlie the Unicorn... where to begin?

If you have not taken a moment out of a busy day or huddled around a computer to feast on this masterpiece then you really cannot consider yourself 'of the 21st century'. Charlie is the bomb. Please allow me to refresh your memory...

"Charlie.. You silly sleepy head... wake up!"

Now it's unknown whether the creator, Jason steele, was on some form of extended acid trip or scaling the heights of a herbal hallucinogen; or whether he simply found his "happy place" - Happy Gilmore style- while forming the masterpiece for (as the film would suggest) "Typequeen" of online community Newgrounds*. But, as of the last time I checked, the creation has been viewed over 38 million times- and thats ony the first movie! So, artificial enhancement or not, that's a lot of trips to candy mountain... Forget conservatism, I'm running with another exclamation mark... Boom!

"Now that's a lot of potential leads!"

I briefly hesitate in absolute artistic appreciation of Charlie. Frankly, I am a huge fan. The simplicity of the language and utter brilliance of the timing is, in my humble unicorn-loving opinion, unrivalled when it comes to flash cartoons on the tube. Of course, I am more that happy to be corrected. Having quickly glanced at the Newgrounds website, it seems as though the film was not created as a means of making a quick buck... so perhaps this was an afterthought?

If you watch the entire movie you will notice that it concludes with an upbeat and circus-like tune whilst directing your attention to a website: "filmcow.com". At this location you can browse through various other funnny clips (most of which I have not seen as of yet) OR visit the "Store".

When I open the link to the store I literally begin to laugh. On the screen before me are various designs and sizes of charlie the uncorn t-shirts, stickers, mousepads, and of course- and no merchandise store would be legit without it- a charlie mug.

But how many t-shirts and mugs can you possibly sell? If, for arguments sake (and I am convinced this is 100% not the case), charlie the unicorn WAS created as as means of online revenue generation, would it be a mathematically and fundamentally wise decision to simply follow up the millions of views with a merchandise store? Let's have a think about this...

To answer this question properly, we need to refer to some of the basic tenets of NLP, or for those non-pop-psychologists out there: Neuro-Linguistic-Programming. Don't worry, this is not going to get all techno-and-outa-control, I promise. And yes, for the large part, NLP has not been overly accepted by the scientific community. But we only need to borrow a small part, so we should all just take a deep breath and get on with it...

As you would be aware, we as humans have a tendency of attaching certain emotions and feelings to different stimulus and circumstances. When watching charlie, for perhaps the 1oth time, I notice that I immediately begin both to smile and hold my breath, it's like a wave of excitment washes over me. A little creepy? Not at all! This is some hypnotic stuff. It's amazing. Now, let's just call this state "excitment phase 1", or EP1 for short.

My question then is simple: how do you get from EP1 to "I-want-to-buy-a-t-shirt"? Does that seem like a natural step? Perhaps not. Then again, maybe it's more like an impulse purchasing strategy. Granted, it does seem to be an instictual reaction to want to share the charlies of the world with others. And I guess a t-shirt would be a good way to do that? But more than likley you will just forward a URL or better still, look over at Nicole from accounts and yell across the office "Ey Nic, you eva heard of charlie the unicorn?... You gotta check that out!"


If you buy a t-shirt, firstly you gotta pay $$$ and then wait for delivery. By this stage, not only has charlie lost his kidney, but he's also probably considered a senior citizen in youtube years- where an hour is like a day. On second thought, sharing the love through the means of a t-shirt is far too lengthy, costly and detached for the fast-moving infomation age we are living in. Not good.

This means, in actuality, that only the really hardcore charlie groupies (and I may or may not be in this category) are likley to purchase a t-shirt in the end. I'm guessing that's probably not too many. Having said this, my logical sales projections could be way off. I would be very interested to know what the figure actually is...

My solution is simple: you need to strike while the iron is hot! While the viewer is still in the EP1, otherwise known as the "very excited and happy" phase, why not advertise for a similar product? Why not advertise for a product or service that will draw out the same EP1 feelings and reactions. Maybe this is a comedy channel? Maybe this is a dvd collection or upcoming comedy film? The product or service is not important really. What IS important is striking while iron is hot! Or, what NLP would tell you, taking one set of feelings and associations (aka anchors) and applying them to another scenario. Put simply, if I am super thirsty, sell me a gatorade, not a t-shirt!

*http://www.newgrounds.com