All Canadian ignorance aside though, reading Stevenson’s review and some of the other related thoughts on their inaugural show, I can’t help but wonder about a few things with respect to reality TV for the purpose of creating a new celebrity money maker.

• What are the factors that made Kelly Clarkson, Kelly Underwood and Clay Aiken rich and all the other American Idols to flop?  Same with the Canadians.  Some of it could be argued as talent I suppose, but certainly not all of it. 
• How much longer will record labels pump money into artificially generated fan bases?  And is that considered a higher or lower risk compared to signing an indie band based on the size of their email list and the number of records they sold off the stage?
• Do fans that were developed via reality TV have higher, lower, or the same lifetime value to the artist on average compared to fans who actually discovered a band, or actor, or porn star, or any other celebrity through more traditional channels.
• Who makes more money–the producer of the reality TV show, the winning contestant, or that contestant’s interested third parties (agents, labels, movie studios, lawyers, etc.)?  And how does that compare to shares of the pie in a more traditional business arrangement like a major label record deal, independent record deal, movie deal, etc.?  Is this really just the media/entertainment industry fleecing the boy and girl next door?

How would you rather become famous?  The "old fashioned way" (whatever that entails) or the reality TV way?  Which would be more lucrative?  More sustainable?  More fulfilling?

I came across this great little collection of notable bloggers’ posts on the topic.  What strikes me is that so many people who get technology still seem hung up on the whole copyright lawsuit thing.  Clearly more of them need to read posts like the one I wrote back on September 18.  I’m not exactly in a position to say “I told you so!” because I didn’t explicitly predict a Google acquisition, although it is certainly along the lines of what I was alluding to when I said it was the most significant portion of their press release.

I’ll restate what I said then in light of the “in the dark” comments of bloggers like Mark Cuban and Jupiter Analyst Joseph Laszlo (who, by the way, even strikes a kinship with his fellow naysayer Cuban in this post): copyright infringement will not be an issue.  Read my lips.  Copyright infrigement will NOT be an issue.  If it was, do you think the major record labels would be standing in line to sign up for the new YouTube copyright screening revenue generator service? 

Copyright owners are drooling over an opportunity to instantly monetize a massive consumer audience without the costs, both monetary and relationship-wise, of suing every 14 year old who posts a homemade karaoke video on YouTube done to the new Justin Timberlake song.

And that’s exactly what Google gets out of this deal.  Of course the boys have to say things like “we have found some opportunities to leverage Google technology in the YouTube offering.”  But at the end of the day, this is a stock-for-stock deal that leaves YouTube operating independently as its own company in its own office.  This is Google building its media monetization empire, not cramming its intelligent search-based ad network into another online property. 

Google is not buying an audience.  Google is buying innovative technology that can identify copyrighted audio and video content within a user-created amateur video, calculate the royalties owed to the copyright owner based on ad revenue generated from the video’s traffic on YouTube, and deliver payment to the copyright owner with full back office reporting.  Google is buying a business, and they’re buying it with Google stock.

Joseph Laszlo asks, “Will Yahoo follow suit?”  I say good luck to Yahoo.

I can’t avoid this annoying little spot to save my life.  It shows up in sponsorship and advertising spots inside some of the shows I watch, it shows up in commercial breaks, and as of last night it even shows up coming out of Stephen Colbert’s mouth and pasted to his chest in his intro (he apparently sold the 5 seconds to the highest bidder).

I’m willing to bet that 95% of you who read this are already having nightmare flashbacks of that suddenly infamous female narrator’s voice repeating, "Head on! Apply directly to the forehead.  Head on! Apply directly to the forehead.  Head on!  Apply directly to the forehead."  I bet you started hearing that slogan ringing through your head as soon as you read the title of my post.

What does the instant recognition and recall of such a simple, common slogan say about the effectiveness of such a basic advertising tactic?  Why is such an uninteresting phrase about a mystery glue-stick that I want to rub on my forehead so unforgettable.  Why has the visual of a woman smearing something directly to her forehead emblazened on my brain in a most permanent fashion?  Even the tone of the narrator’s voice is impossible to forget.

Has the agency that produced this little gem of a television spot discovered how to embed subconscious trauma into TV ad creative?  Is there some sort of psychological cocaine injection that I get every time I expose myself to this ridiculous ad?

And most importantly, now that I have somehow independently developed the assumption that this annoying little glue stick is a cure for headache symptoms (and I SWEAR I have not spoken to a soul about this so I find this development my assumption interesting in and of itself) will I drop cold hard cash on this product to try it out next time I have a nasty headache and I’m walking through the drug store?

Why does this commerical have so much influence over me?  Over you?  Over the thousands of people who are already blogging and vlogging about it?  How did such a basic, generic, simple piece of advertising creative become a piece of pop culture so quickly?

I would love to hear your ideas.

As for the others… damn the jerk(s) who tipped my brand new scooter over and scratched her rear end; watch out entertainment lawyers who take 2 week vacations in the middle of a major contract negotiation because you think it’s a great "tactic"; sleep with one eye open Dog, because you’re getting dangerously close to Springer’s demographic; Agassi, that was a shady tactic to announce your retirement BEFORE your last tourney just so that everybody would let you win at the U.S. Open; people with fauxhawks…shit or get off the pot–faux anything is lame; the colour teal is stuck in the early 90’s I’m afraid, and always will be; and pizza pops–always either too hot and burn my mouth, or too cold and taste like the eraser on the end of a pencil.  Good riddance!

It’s viral marketing (sort of), but it wasn’t created by anybody affiliated with Stephen Colbert or his show.
Whoever built this puppy has done Stephen Colbert a massive favor from a viral marketing perspective.  Simple, funny, and incredibly well done.  (p.s. to the creator, thanks for not littering it with tacky advertising that nobody ever clicks on.)

You can create your own "On Notice" board for free on this fun little website. 

I imagine it’s only a matter of days before the folks at Colbert Nation license this to put it on Colbert’s fan site.

Thanks to Jacquie for pointing me to this from her blog.

Because of this all-too-predictable annual dissapointment, I wouldn’t typically bother wasting pixels with a blog post about Canadian Idol.  However, after watching a few episodes this season and seeing the clearly unfair, unjustified favoritism displayed by the judges (and possibly even the production staff) for 28-year old Rob James, I had to vent somewhere.

First off, Rob has already been around the major label track as half of the mediocre contemporary rock duo McMaster & James.  He had a record deal, he made some money, he signed some autographs, and he fell out of style.  Welcome to the Canadian music biz.  One of the more popular McMaster & James tunes was even recorded by Canadian Idol winner (and colossal flop) Ryan Malcolm on his album.  Second of all, Rob keeps performing old McMaster & James tunes as he competes on this season’s Idol.  Hmmm…think he’s trying to sell a few more of his cheesy 6 year old records?

After his now aged voice cracks, after he sings out of tune, and after he dances on stage like someone’s 40 year old drunk uncle at a wedding, the judges practically fall all over each other for the chance to tell Rob how incredible he is, and how much of a heartthrob he is.

Sony/BMG Canada, the label that releases all Canadian Idol albums, knows Rob very well.  In fact, he has likely spent many an afternoon being schmoozed in their funky downtown offices over the years.  The McMaster & James self-titled album was released in 2000 on BMG. There is also little doubt in my mind that a number of people on the Idol staff and judges panel think that Rob has already won this competition (or have perhaps been TOLD so), even though there are still 9 other finalists still in the running. 

I wouldn’t even care if all of the other competitors were legitimately worse than Rob.  But an hour in front of the TV is all it takes to realize that he is clearly outmatched.  So please, Canada, if for no other reason than to prevent further damage to our already tortured Canadian music industry, please vote for Canadian Idol competitors that actually deserve to win…for whatever that victory is worth.

Let’s show Rob, Sony/BMG, and the Idol crew that we’re not dumb enough to fall for an entire TV series as a subversive commercial to sell the leftover copies of McMaster & James that are sitting in the record store bargain bins.

Then he waved Lee over to shake his hand behind the boardroom table.  It wouldn’t surprise me if Lee was still pitching himself as the theme song played triumphantly.  It also wouldn’t surprise me if "The Donald" continued to buy Lee’s ignorant, ill informed self-promotion.

But I digress…watch the closing sequence closely.  Just after shaking Lee’s hand, you can clearly read Trump’s lips as he tells Lee, "Call me next week."

Come on Trump…a 22 year old straight out of school?  Seems like a pretty high profile coffee jockey.

So his new show, broadcast online from his very own living room will go in one of two directions: either it will be incredibly horrible, or it will be incredibly genius.  And the kicker is that it has absolutely zero to do with Tom Green’s talent, ability, or likeability.  It has everything to do with whether or not enough of us are willing and ready to watch a talk show on our computer monitors.  If Green can attract a large enough audience to justify celebrity guests and advertisers with reasonable sized budgets, this show will become the new poster child for next generation content production.  If it flops, Tom Green will once again be the whipping boy for a concept far ahead of its time.