Super Bowl Declared King of the Ratings

The Super Bowl is almost always a massive ratings getter, one of the reasons they have multi-million dollar ads played in the States. This time around, the Supre Bowl actually was the highest rated show ever in the United States, and the second highest rated show ever in Canada. EVER. I am not talking about this year (which being one month in wouldn't be overly impressive) or the last few years but the highest watched show since it was deemed important to record ratings. It beat out the Series Finale of MASH which aired in 1983. I am quite shocked to hear the record lasted that long and also sort of shocked to know this was the show that held that record. I knew this particular game was going to draw a crowd, but I doubt anyone would have made the claims this would be the most watched show ever. Of course, retrospect allows things to become a little more clear and now, I can see why this show did so well.

There has been talk that this show proves that broadcast television is not dead. There had been a fear that television was beginning to lose out to the internet and all its video streaming goodness. I'm sure the 'on-demand' capabilities of the web will continue to make it a popular way to be entertained, but I also don't think anyone was seriously considering piling the dirt on cable television. At the same time, I don't necessarily think this large rating can be the sign that television will be begin to draw enormous ratings thus filling obscene amounts of advertising revenue into the pockets of television executives. I do think the massive rating does show the factors that need to be in place for future large rating victories.

First of all, I feel the economy probably plays a big role in a record setting rating this year. Despite governments and banks trying to convince us the recession has left town, the reality is there are still many people without job thus several people with rather tight budgets. This means that people are going to turn to cheaper forms of entertainment. Now, the Super Bowl isn't necessarily free because many end up paying for cable to watch it. But the Super Bowl was also on network television which essentially means anyone with 'rabbit ears' (antennas, because actual rabbit ears won't work and it would be kind of gross to stick those on your television) could access the game, which then would make it free. Essentially, the game could reach those who do fling cash to cable providers and those who are not in the financial place to use money in that way. Either way, monthly cable can still be cheaper than a night out enjoying other forms of entertainment (for example, beer at the bar is far more expensive than at the store). I would think the tighter wallets would be a big reason for people to decide to stay home, thus a higher amount of people watching TV.

Of course, I don't think television executives can or want to keep the economy in a slump, thus it won't be the reason for great ratings forever. I think, the best reason the Super Bowl garnered a great rating was because it was an event. 'Event TV' is what is going to draw ratings. I think, sporting events are one of the television programs that are safe from the video streaming of the internet. The draw of event television is that you can have a bunch of friends over and witness something special or rare. Something you can enjoy with company and have a wild time together. I can't see too many people wanting to huddle around their computer screen with 7 or more buddies. In this case, I'd say sporting events that attract crowds are safe from the internet.

I also think Event television is something you want to see live. I find streaming from the internet can still be a little slow and isn't as smooth as television. This would be another big reason that people turned to the TV instead. You wanted to witness the Super Bowl live and not a day later via download. This is the same reason I am sure the Lost Finale or any other major 'in' show will do great ratings, because it will be perceived as an event that you want to see 'live.' If something is big enough, people won't want to risk going into work the next day and revealing they missed out. Or even worse, risk the chance of having the event spoiled for you.

I am sure the better question is, what made Sunday's game come off as an event that a huge portion of North America had to watch? After all, both teams came from smaller markets, which usually means for a less watched game (which is a reason why networks weren't big fans of the Jays back to back World Series appearances). My guess, Hurricane Katrina. No, I don't think people were hoping for the natural disaster to make a return and wipe out a whole stadium. I do think, people really got attached to the 'underdog' story of the New Orleans Saints, and were still very sympathetic to what happen to the people in that city 4 years ago. People like happy endings, and the Super Bowl provided the possibility of that. Plus it helps the game was really good, so a lot of people decided to stick to the end.

I think, it will be interesting to see how long this record holds. I am sure executives are hoping for another chance to repeat this success in the very near future. When it does happen, I guarantee it will be event television, and something the majority of us will not want to risk missing out on.

Top Ten Reasons For There Not Being A Blog Post Tonight

10. A SuperBowl Hangover aka my aging body can no longer handle a mass digestion of copious amounts of junk food.

9. I am boycotting my blog in protest of the lack of oatmeal hats being sold in the marketplace. It is all a conspiracy by the man trying to hold down the little people.

8. Too busy watching Jack Bauer making this world a better place by killing Russians. Well, I am not in support of the killing of Russians, but at least, these Russians were really mean.

7. Hitler, because I've learned he is always to be blamed.

6. I was reminiscing of the good old days, when I'd go 2 years without blogging rather than this whole blogging every day garbage.

5. There was a rabid llama roving about in my office, I really did not want to risk having to endure its herbivorous rage. He might start chewing on my hemp pants. Well, if I had hemp pants.

4. Doc showed me this Delorean that went back in time, then I ended up in the 50s where my mom had this crush on me. . .no wait, that was Back to the Future. Never mind.

3. Summit mistaken me for a bone, and buried me beside our shed. Ignore the fact that Summit doesn't bury bones but rather eats them instead. Hmmm. . .maybe that is it, I was eaten by Summit but he ended up being allergic, so luckily I came out again. Your welcome for the visual.

2. Off doing Brantford's hottest new hobby, smashing down things that look old, but it backfired, as a herd of 6 year olds started pelting me with mini eggs.

1. Hmmm. . . seems like I ended up blogging after all.

When 'Super Bowl' May Be A Fitting Name

For years, Super Bowl had this label of being an overhyped mess. I remember through my childhood being told by my father how the AFC and NFC conference finals were the real good games, and the Super Bowl was just a formality were the 'real' champions routed some schmucks in a uniform. The Super Bowl is definitely one of the most hyped events of the year and probably the biggest sporting event of most years (this year it has a little competition with this thing called the Olympics). The hype usually pays off as it almost always has record ratings, though one would wonder how much that ever has to do with the game. In the United States, you have these million dollar commercials that probably half the people tune in to see, the reality is, the commercials are often more anticipated than the actual game. Of course, in Canada we only get about a quarter of these commercials, then are forced to either see those same commercials over and over again, or forced to watch some tired old ones that aren't worth many millions. Up here, unless you have an American satellite, you actually tune in for the game.

You know what, I am actually really stoked for the game this year. I feel it has the potential to really live up to the title of Super Bowl. I am still not sure what a dish that holds cereal has to do with the game, but other than that, it should be a really exciting game. First of all, this past decade has produced a lot of really awesome Super Bowls thus the stigma of bad games is slowly being erased. On top of that, there is a really great match up taking place here this evening.

There are a lot of interesting factors that make this such an exciting game. You have the two best QBs in the league going against each other. You have two teams that can score a lot of points but also have a strong defense. I also think you can really create a great and emotional story when comparing the two teams. You have the powerhouse Colts who many are saying are destined to be a 'dynasty' team. They already have one Super Bowl championship from the previous decade, and many can foresee more in the near future. On the other hand, you have the perennial underdogs in the Saints, a team that has not only failed to win a Super Bowl but has never even been in a Super Bowl. Tonight, they have the chance to win the first Super Bowl they've ever been in. This is a team that has been the butt of many football jokes, they are the laughingstock of the NFL (sort of like the Cubs of the MLB). This is their day to erase all that. If being such huge underdogs isn't enough to root for them, remember this team is from a city that faced massive tragedy only a few years ago in Hurricane Katrina. They could use a big boost like this. The reality is, despite having the 'underdog' label, they are a really great team and have a real shot of winning it tonight.

I will admit, I am cheerting for Saints. It isn't just because the Colts previous Super Bowl win was against my beloved Bears (okay, maybe a little). No matter who you want to win, I think, we can all agree we want a great game. I feel, this year these teams will definitely deliver. So, grab a bowl chips and get a cold beer, and enjoy yourself what should be the game of the year (or at least, game of the week).

Publishing Company Will Plunder Until the 'Men' Go Under

I am not sure how many have heard about the copyright lawsuit case between Larrikin Publishing and the band Men At Work over the song 'Down Under.' If you haven't, then check out the details in this article. Go ahead, I'll patiently wait here.

Done? Good.

Obviously, as a person who aspires to have a career that involves creating product for the mass consumption of society, the issue of copyright holds a great deal of interest to me. I completely believe an artist's hard work needs to be protected from those who want to profit by ripping it off. Simply put, I am wholeheartedly opposed to plagiarism, and if I wasn't, I'd be a fool for wanting to break into the novel writing business. Either I would find myself in a rather nasty lawsuit for snagging someone else's masterpiece, or I would come off as a massive hypocrite when I take action against a person who decided they wanted to claim my novel ideas as their own. I definitely believe the tighter the copyright laws, the better. Things have improved greatly from 100 plus years ago when many dirtbags who lacked a creative thought were able to steal ideas from the talented and creative because the matters of intellectual property and international copyright was unclear or unwritten. I fully endorse copyright and hope it will be able to protect me (though, I hope to never have to enter into any type of lawsuit), but I think this issue goes into the territory of pure insanity (or actually, where a copyright hurts the artist).

Let me get this straight, the lady who wrote the girl guide's song 'Kookaburra' passes away in 1988 which lead to the rights of the song going to Larrikin Music publishing which is a part of a multinational company, Music Sales. This company has owned this song since about 1988, a song that has been written since 1935. Men At Work released 'Down Under' in 1981, and went on to become a huge international hit. You would think Ms. Marion Sinclair would have either heard this song or had a close friend that would have made her aware of it, considering this hit maker was happening in their own country. When Larrikin Music got the rights to this song in 1988, I would have assumed they had heard of 'Down Under.' Yet a copyright lawsuit was not filed until this past year? Serious?

I imagine that one day an executive at Larrikin was sitting at home and thinking, 'By Golly, I really would love a Vegemite sandwich and a can of Fosters, but I'm all out and don't feel like using my own money. Where can steal some from a helpless sucker?" While he was scheming his master plan of evil, he decided it was good to conjure up this diabolical plan while rocking out to some music. He picked up his 'Men At Work' album to listen to and suddenly exclaimed, 'I'm sure I can find a song on here that vaguely resembles something my company owns the rights to. Vegemite and Fosters will be mine!!!!'

Seriously, this is nothing but a vile cash grab. Copyright laws should be in place to help the artist. They are designed to protect creative works. The reality is, the person who wrote 'Kookaburra' has passed away over 20 years ago and none of her family even owns the rights to this song. It is a song owned by a corporation, and they simply found a way to earn some easy money. If this was really an issue about copyright, why wasn't there any discussion of this back in 1981? You know, when 'Down Under' was being played on the airwaves? Back when Men At Work were actually a big name? Instead a lawsuit is being filed almost 30 years after the song hit the airwaves, and a long time after Men At Work are even considered relevant. Essentially someone realized 'Down Under' made a lot of money off royalties and they wanted a large piece of that.

I think, the most frustrating part is how the execs at Larrikin are claiming this as a win for the little people. The truth is, this isn't a win for Ms. Sinclair at all, she has passed one thus won't see a cent. This is a win for a large and greedy company. I feel this is a horrible abuse of the copyright system and am quite saddened about it.

I just hope when I publish my epic about pick ax wielding squirrels that some nasty corporation doesn't decide they want my royalties 30 years after the fact.

The First 7 Months of Summit's Life: A Pictorial Story

Some of the best tales do not need any words.




































Yes, I realize an entire blog post where I overwhelm you with a plethora of pictures of my puppy essentially turns me into the 'annoying parent who is always shoving a wallet full of pictures of his kids in your face' kind of person.

Real Life Comment That (Possible Only I Think) Contains Oodles Of Humour

I was having a delightful conversation with a very great friend, when the conversation naturally lend itself for the watching of this clip from the profound, cinematic epic, The Program. (Note: People using Facebook to view this post will need to link to the blog to view the video)



My friend then says to me, "What I want to know is, how did they photoshop that guys head to my body."

Photoshop.

He wanted to know how they PHOTOshopped the head to his body in a live action movie.

Because when watching film where you see amazing special effects, the first thing you think is, 'Wow, that is some amazing use of that photoshop program they did there."

I am not sure why George Lucas went to all that work with CGI and all those other amazing technological advances in film, when all he needed was a photoshop program from his desktop.

Yeah, I do know that I am a jerk. Why do you ask?

Uh oh, Big Brother Toronto Noticing Brantford's Skirmishes at the Kiddie Table, aka Opinions and Observations on Brantford's Downtown Debate

Yesterday morning, I was partaking in my daily ritual of reading (skimming) the Toronto Star when I came across an article about the growing debate in Brantford, in regards to what to do with several buildings in the core of the downtown. I found it very interesting that this issue has reached a major paper like the Star, since this demonstrates that this is a 'conflict' that concerns more than just the small city of Brantford. Considering it is now being covered by major city papers, I feel there is a small chance my readers, (how ever vast or possibly minuscule that is) who are not from Brantford, may have an idea of this issue thus worthy of discussing here. Of course, I'm sure most of the people who are outside of this province would not even have a clue that Brantford even existed, let alone that it was home to a small yet growing issue. To those people I say, shame on you because this is the home of Wayne Gretzky and the telephone (well, the latter is debatable but the inventor did live here for a few years).

Brantford's downtown has been finally revitalized due to the addition of Wilfrid Laurier in 1999. The downtown has seen an influx of businesses and the restoration of some buildings, along with great additions like the Harmony Square which holds a stage, some restaurants and a skating rink. Despite all these great advances, the area has been plagued by a collection of buildings that are, without a doubt, hideous eye sores. Most of the building along this stretch are boarded up and have paintings that are best described as 'faux businesses'. Along the strip you'll see a 'pet store,' 'movie theatre,' 'a bank,' and 'grocery store,' except they are actually just empty buildings with paintings of these storefronts on them. It is like we are being told ' these type of businesses could be here but we'd rather house rats instead.' The area was so bad at one point, a movie about a ghost town was taped there. Simply put, it is an embarrassment for an area that is trying to grow and improve.

Needless to say, things needed to be fixed. Finally, the city bought up this strip of buildings with the idea that they will be renovated and draw new businesses. This lead to a split in sides with one side wanting to completely tear down these building and another that just wants to refurbish them. I was originally on the side of tearing them down and would have been more than happy to bring my own sledgehammer to assist in the smashing of things. I have now changed my opinion and this is why.

There are two major problems I have with the idea of completely destroying this strip of buildings. Mys first gripe is that not every building in this area needed to be changed since a few of these building actually did have some business. There was a restaurant called 'My Thai' that resided in this region which, for Brantford, was a pretty nice Thai restaurant (thought honestly, it isn't like they have a lot of competition when it comes to Brantford Thai restaurants). Sadly, the idea to completely renovate/destroy this section of buildings has forced the Thai restaurant to move. My Thai has been annexed to another area in Brantford, which I think is unfortunate. The restaurant was near the University which means My Thai would have been able to cater to a fairly diverse clientele (as many students are from Toronto) thus would probably be able to acquire a decent customer base. Plus the restaurant was near the Harmony Square, which holds events like the Fall Jazz festival, that attracts a lot of diverse people from outside of the city who may be interested in some quality Thai food. Unfortunately, the new location is in an area that has a more traditional small city demographic which means it is not very diverse at all. Plus the restaurant has been pushed in this small corner of a street which is makes the restaurant harder to find unless you are actively looking for it. I find this sad because I feel it may harm its business and I really want Brantford to be able to have a more diverse array of restaurants (because when it comes to cultural diversity, I always think with my stomach).

My second problem with the idea of the comeplete destruction of the strip is the fact that it has become clear the people in charge are not 100% sure of what they want to do with this area and also don't have the budget to immediately put new buildings in place. This gives me the creeps, since we may be left with a nice pile of rumble for the time being, not exactly the view I want from Harmony Square. I fear the rush to get rid of these eye sores will only leave us with a new eye sore. I am beginning to fear they haven't quite planned out how they are going to properly fix this region. I am starting to believe it may be much smarter to just get a concrete plan in place (a sign I don't understand how city management works) and maybe refurbish the area instead. After all, while the buildings are not beautiful, I feel with some work they can be. These building hold a lot of history and when you actually give them a good look over, you notice they have a lot of potential. At this point, I think the more gradual refurbishing of the buildings is the more effective strategy.

On a semi related matter, I want to bring up two things I read in the actual Toronto Star article that slightly irked me, which having nothing to do with the debate. The first is the fact they referred to the downtown of Brantford as 'small.' This adjective immediately struck a chord with me, and maybe it is my own small city insecurities that caused this, because I instantly saw this as the Big City downplaying the smaller city. Of course, you compare the Toronto downtown to the Brantford downtown then it makes Brantford's look very small. If Toronto could talk, I'm sure it would be bragging about how it can fit 9 Brantfords into its downtown, but Toronto is also the biggest city in the country while Brantford is a population of 90,000 + (and growing, mind you). I don't think Toronto being huge necessarily makes Brantford's downtown 'small.' I lived in a town where you could blindfold yourself, hop on one leg and if you took more than 5 minutes to get through the downtown, then it would be considered an epic fail. The fact is, Brantford's downtown consists of several streets, few small parks, a fairly large library, all the lecture halls for Laurier, an assortment of restaurants and shops, and the Harmony square, which itself has a stage, restaurants and a skating rink. I wouldn't really consider that small, and the use of that word seemed to just scream big city arrogance.

The second irksome comment in the paper is how they reported the downtown mall lead to the destruction of the downtown. I do agree with that statement to a degree but feel, the way the paper reported it was false. They made it sound like this large mall barged into the downtown area thus causing all the Brantfordians to rampage towards it thus causing the' mom and pop shops' to go out of business. The reality is, the major problem with downtown is a lot of shops and restaurants lost customers thus either went under or moved to the northern part of Brantford, but t definitely was not because everyone decided to go into the downtown mall. All one has to do, in order to test this theory, is to walk through that desolate and barren cavern of a building. Essentially, the entire mall is a giant headquarters for the NGO calling agency, and I don't see people flocking inside to watch a few telemarketers harass people during dinner, mainly because I don't think the company would allow you to turn their business into a spectator event. Or maybe the Star was referring to that dollar store that is in the mall because I am sure they just do killer business. The reality is, the mall was a massive flop and failure, and definitely did not cause people to go there instead of the 'mom and pop shops'. The successful mall is in the north end and there was never a reason for another mall since at the time we already had two. I do want to make it clear that the mall hurt the downtown but just not in the way the newspaper seemed to claim. Also, I do realize there is now a Williams in the mall too, which does do great business with the students, but it's only a few years old thus not a reason for any destruction of small private businesses.

Now back to the original point of this post (and the end of rage against Toronto Star reporting -- which I think is a fine paper and I subscribe to, by the way), the next few weeks should be a very crucial time for Brantford and the decisions will play a major part of the future of this wonderful city. First of all, there is the mayoral election this fall and this will be a hot topic. I believe we will quickly learn what the majority of the citizens of this city feel about this topic through how they vote. After the election, I assume will be when the major movement is done (or if movement is done before hand, those events will play a big part in how people vote). The choices made will definitely decide how the downtown continues to grow. I feel that strip has a lot of potential to aid in the growth and, for me that is the most important part. I don't necessarily have any attachment to those heritage buildings and won't necessarily cry if they are torn down. My worry is what happens after the fact and how it effects all the surrounding businesses. In the end, I just hope it aids in the continual growth of a downtown that has needed an injection of life for a very long time and has finally been getting it over the last few years.