Advertising in Books

We are surrounded by ads.  There are ads on your TV, newspapers, magazines, billboards, automobiles, flyers, webpage, your cell phone…  Ads are just about everywhere.

Let's first discuss print media, in which when you pick up your local free newspaper or the national newspaper they are full of ads and in fact their greatest source of revenue comes from those very same ads.   Magazines that you subscribe to or buy off of the stand may be more than 50% ads.   But have you noticed that virtually all books that you buy or borrow are ad free except perhaps for a postcard posted in the middle of the book or a list of the publisher’s books listed at the end of the book that they hope you might be interested in perusing and then purchasing from. That's pretty much it, as you certainly won't see any advertising (except for the occasional movie or TV tie-in) on the front, the sides, or the back of the cover of the book or really nothing in-between.  Why is that?

To the point, when you are reading a newspaper or a magazine you have the option upon seeing an ad, to pay attention to it or to simply read the article(s) on that page and once finished, to move on to the next page.  For me, advertising in magazines and newspapers seldom bothers me and occasionally the ads serve their purpose as I read them and perhaps cut out a coupon.  Honestly though, I seldom find them to be a distraction or an irritant.  I mean, a lot of the time I really don't even notice them.

That's why I don't understand the book publishing business at all.  I mean, if magazines have a pretty good idea of their demographics, I would suspect a book publisher to have the same pretty good idea too.  That being the case, why not try to enhance your revenue by soliciting ads.  I just don't see this as being controversial whatsoever.  Unless the subject book is literally splashed with ads on every other page I don't believe the continuity of the books will be disturbed whatsoever.

Now let's take electronic media which may be the best starting point for advertisements in books because the logistics and cost are probably much lower and the testing of these theories are much easier/quicker to explore.  The Kindle Fire sells itself with ads and also without.  The difference in price is $15.  But what is the ad?  All the ad does is it shows up anytime you turn on or wakeup your kindle, to get rid of the ad is as simple as sliding your finger to unlock your kindle.  That isn't worth $15 to me and quite frankly I don't even know why there is any controversy as I don't mind the ad and secretly I hope for a special or enticement on some product that interests me.

So why doesn't Amazon or somebody else sell electronic books with or without ads.  No doubt, Amazon has some good personal information about you that would help to target their ads on behalf of advertisers and/or the book publisher will already have a pretty good idea of the target audience that the book appeals to.  All Amazon has to do is then offer you the book with or without ads and discount the book some appropriate % with ads.

Then, let the marketplace decide.

See You Soon

I was at the gym the other day when one of my friends that I workout with said “see you soon” to me as he was leaving. As soon as he said it I have to admit I sort of liked it and the more I thought about it the more I really liked it.

After years of hearing “take care” or “later” or “see you later” or “catch you later” – it's nice to mix it up a bit and "see you soon" is just a really nice sentiment that hits the spot.  I do also like "take care" because that just seems like a nice, caring thought.  Whereas the variations of "later" just seem a bit too businesslike or even perhaps a little dismissive.  Yeah, "see you soon" has a real nice feel to it.

Now, thinking about it, "see you soon" isn't something that you would say every time or for everyone.  I mean, that's what makes the phrase so special.  You save it for someone that you actually are hoping to see "sooner" as compared to "later".  I like that.  Now, of course, once you start using "see you soon" with someone you can't switch it up and start throwing in "see you later".  That really won't work because that person would perceive a letdown, so unless you're trying to give that distinct impression, you will have to use "take care" or another appropriate substitute.

And while I suppose you can say that "say you later" or "take care" are just part of social necessities, really not meaning much of one thing or another, I beg to differ.  It is a form of social contact and is usually the last or just about the last statement that you say to an acquaintance or a friend so there is more here than a mere formality to it. 

Words do matter, and there is a rhythm to our conversation in which we have to play our part.  Whereas "how are you doing" is a form of "Hi, Hello" it can be much more when you put a little bit more emphasis on it and say something to the effect, "No, really, seriously, how are you doing?"  People understand that to mean that you want to engage them in a more meaningful conversation and chat for a while.

I believe that "see you soon" has more of the connotation that you care, and perhaps more importantly, it leads the door open, that you'll indeed pick up the conversation where you left the next time that you meet which could be right around the corner. Whereas your "see you later", on the other hand, sort of shuts the door and says pretty much to the effect we're done for now and with no real promise that the conversation will be picked up at any near point.

Now perhaps I'm reading into it way too much, and perhaps I'm taking words too literally, but given a choice between being a touch more considerate or receiving a little extra consideration I have to say I prefer that.

See you soon!

CAR SAFETY

In America, way too many people die or are seriously injured in automobile accidents each year (and all over the world for that matter!).  According to the NHTSA there were 32,367 vehicle deaths and 2,217,000 injuries in calendar year 2011 for the USA. While the trend has been going down due to car safety improvements, it seems to me that this can be improved upon even more dramatically without a lot of cost to the consumer or distress to the car manufacturer.  

When I think of automobile accidents I often reflect on the NASCAR car races shown on TV in which incredibly and in often harrowing circumstances the driver of a high speed car after running into a wall or into another car (or cars) often survives relatively unscathed.  Although, obviously, that isn't true in every case, it is true in a remarkably high amount of them and consequently this is something well worth looking into and emulating. 

This leads to the premise that if race car drivers can survive in high speed crashes why can’t we, the common people, do the same.  While we most certainly won't be comparing apples to apples, it would seem that two significant factors could immediately help improve our fatality and injury statistics. 

The first item to look at is our seatbelt design which is known as a 3-point since it goes across your lap and diagonally across your chest.  But check this out, this design was initiated by Volvo back in 1959!  While we can be grateful for this innovation, time demands an improvement.  Fortunately, there are a few experimental seatbelts in the works, such as the "criss-cross" or  the "3x2 safety belt" but essentially you want to develop something that will restrain the driver's body from moving forward at a rapid pace during a car crash--and that improves upon our current 3-poin seatbelt. For instance, in NASCAR they use a five-point safety harness, something similar to that, modified as necessary for our use, makes a lot of sense to me.  The physics behind this improved seatbelt design should be studied, experimented with, and then implemented as either standard equipment, optional, or as a consumer add-on.

The second idea to improve vehicle safety is the use of a helmet.  What's this you say?  Helmets for a car!  You have got to be kidding, but no I am not.  It is best to remember that out of all your body parts your brain is the most irreplaceable.  Head injuries most definitely can be fatal, and if not fatal, quite debilitating.  Again, logic would dictate that a helmet could be designed for vehicle use that would protect the driver and at the same time not obstruct their hearing or vision. 

While I am not an advocate of making either of these changes mandatory, I do believe that these options should be readily available.  A typical 3-point seatbelt appears to cost the manufacturer $12 (Anzellotti Sperling Pazol & Small, LLC).  Whereas, a good helmet perhaps ranges from $40-75 in price.  These costs aren't prohibitive and the upside in vehicle safety makes it well worth the while to take a serious and studied look at.

Soccer Rants

Ball Possession:

One of the stats that they put on soccer telecasts is percentage of ball possession.  I find the stat to be kinda annoying and kinda interesting, but what really got me was questioning how a team like FC Barcelona can consistently have 70% ball possession or above.  Really?  So I did a little research and I found out a lot more about this term "ball possession" from OptaSports as follows:

"Opta now record possession in a football match by means of an automated calculation based on the number of passes that a team has in a game."… 
"During the game, the passes for each team are totalled up and then each team's total is divided by the game total to produce a percentage figure which shows the percentage of the game that each team has accrued in possession of the ball. "

Aha, so that explains how Barcelona puts up these insane ball possession numbers.  Barcelona are the kings of short, precise and concise passing which is what Opta records ultimately as 'ball possession'.  Consequently, 'ball possession' is a misnomer.  How about some full disclosure?!  And why not just call it what it is, which is simply a stat of passes made by each team.

Corner Kicks:

Perhaps I am just ignorant but way too many corner kicks look helter-skelter to me and that just doesn't make any sense.  Here you have a real scoring opportunity in the opponents' end of the field and you would think that putting the ball in the back of their net would be a high priority.  If soccer was run like the NFL, there most definitely would be a playbook and that is just what soccer needs.  Perhaps these plays are well disguised and I'm just ignorant of that, but based on the low percentage of goals scored from corner kicks, that doesn't appear to be the case. 

Further to this point, it has been shown that a " ‘critical delivery area’ between the 6-yard box and the penalty spot has been identified" (Hughes and Petit, 2001; Taylor et al., 2005) so why not try to place the ball into that critical delivery area each and every time.

Throw-ins:

Throw-ins are fairly innocuous, until you are down by your oppositions' area of the field and then they can become something more.  I refer specifically to Rory Delap and his amazing throws into the penalty area from the sideline.  Obviously, something like this can only work under certain conditions:

1.      Must have a nice run-up on the pitch

2.      Must be close enough to the penalty box that the throw can be even attempted

3.      Must be able to make the throw

I really don't know how difficult it is, to develop the skillset that Rory Delap has.  Perhaps he is a freak of nature, perhaps not.  But having said this, it would behoove a coach to at least test his players for their long throw ability and if any of those players have that potential to develop it. 

Football Penalty Flag

Football is America's most popular sport with powerhouse TV ratings but why is it that the powers-to-be can't see the obvious and make a small tweak to the current usage of penalty flags to make the game much more enjoyable and of more interest.

That is to say, why is it in football that when an official throws the penalty flag it’s always yellow?  You would think that by now they would have some innovations to this aging and inadequate tradition.  Hey, how about this?  Why not one color flag for defense (let’s leave that yellow) and another color flag for an offensive infraction (let’s make that blue).  There, that solves the problem.  Two penalty flags--simple. Yes, it's a bit more complicated for the zebra-stripes but hey, the officials can practice this new procedure in the preseason and iron out all the kinks so to speak on the gridiron.

Will mistakes be made?  No doubt, but that can be rectified.  If the wrong flag is thrown down, the offending official should follow that up by throwing down the correct flag and then picking up the wrongly used one.  Having corrected this mistake in an expeditious manner, or, as in the much more likely case, having thrown the correct flag down to begin with should leave no doubt in the fan's mind, on which side the infraction will be called.  This means that by the time that official turns his mike on to announce to the crowd what the infraction was we will already know which team/side it was on.  That’s a really good thing.   How good?

Well, the most important thing to remember is that the game is for the fans.  It is much more satisfying to be able to enjoy the moment as opposed to worrying as to whether the penalty flag negates the play.  Especially, as every real fan knows, when it’s a big, big play.  Is there anything more exciting than when your team scores a critical touchdown?  Why mitigate that excitement?  It's not necessary and this simple adjustment will take care of that issue. 

So that we will find that in the future when the offensive player scores a touchdown or gains some serious yardage and you see a yellow flag it won’t stop the celebration because you will know that that flag is on the defense.  If, however, the flag is blue, you can suspect the very worst and not waste your time with meaningless and senseless celebrations. 

Just to make a final point, it's good toremember that other officials in other sports carry more than one color.  Think soccer. Yellow means caution and red means ejection. Simple.  Straightforward.  So it’s not like it hasn’t been done before.  Just as the yellow flag was a quantum leap as it replaced the inadequate whistle or horn, so will two flags be superior to the current usage of just one, and the game, the excitement, the passion, will all be the better for it.

TSA Blows

The following incident occurred to me on June 16, 2011.

On June 16, 2011 I was in the security line at LAX.  As far as I could determine, each passenger had to pass through the Backscatter X-Ray Technology machine.  (This is the machine in which you have to place your feet on the foot images and then have to put your arms in the air with your fingers of each hand nearly touching each other for 10 seconds.)  The TSA representative made it clear that you were suppose to have no objects in your pants or clothes, so my wallet, boarding pass, carry-on luggage were not in my possession, but had instead gone through the security scanner machine.  I had on no belt, no jewelry, and no shoes.  I was wearing a dress shirt and slacks.

I was surprised when I was taken aside after going through the X-Ray technology machine.  The TSA agent next to me had an earpiece and a small microphone.  It was apparent that he was getting instructions from some other TSA representative.  I was then told that they needed to pat down my buttocks which I allowed.  I was further told that I had “four anomalies in my groin area”.  This statement I found to be absurd as the specificity of the anomalies seemed completely out of place and the “reading” of my x-ray was a false flag, a smokescreen, or some misguided or misjudged attempt to fluster me.  Next, the TSA agent took a flat white special paper with an arrow at the top of it and ran it over both of my hands, front and back.  I was not told what this was for but I assumed it was for a check for explosive debris or drugs being on my fingers. 

Next I was told that they needed to do a “private screening” of me because of the anomalies.  I was not; at that point, even aware that private screenings were conducted for US citizens traveling domestically and was frankly puzzled by the “private” part which I considered to be not in my best interests.  However, having taking a position of both being stoic and following Matthew 5:39 “resist not evil” I followed the TSA agent who now had a partner to a private room that was just past the security area.  Before leaving, I was asked which bins were mine and the other TSA agent took those with him and brought them to the room. 

Inside the small room, there was a table that the bins were placed on.  I was told that they were going to close the door in order to conduct my “private screening”.  I was further told by the TSA agent how he would touch my private parts, which was with his palm facing towards me.  The TSA agent proceeded to pat me down over my entire body which surprised me as I was told the “four anomalies were in my groin area.”   I was told to raise my hands, but midway through this pat down he told me to put my arms down “as I was not under arrest”.  That statement was strange, as by definition a TSA agent is not a law enforcement agent.  The TSA agent had on light blue gloves which eventually found their way to my genital area which was firmly brushed.  I was not groped or fondled.  He then took another white special paper with an arrow at the top of it and ran it over both of his hands and left the room. 

This left me alone with the other TSA agent who I had designated as ‘good cop’ because of his desire to make small talk with me.  I assumed that the room was bugged but I did not know if it was. 

Eventually, the other TSA agent returned, he told me that I could leave.  I was never given the results of my “tests”.  I was never told as to why they were unable to find the “four anomalies in my groin area”.  I was never apologized to. 

I collected my things and left.  It was my belief that they weren’t checking for explosives but that they were instead checking for drug residue with the swabbing.  It is also my belief that “four anomalies in my groin area” was a deliberate false statement and in fact, a code for me to be treated the way that I was dealt with.

Since this episode, I have gone to the TSA site and clearly the TSA did not follow its own rules.  To wit:

1.     It’s my option to go to a private room or not.  That option was never given to me.

2.     It’s my option to have a witness to the “private screening”—that option was never given to me.  Instead, I had two male TSA agents in the same room, interrogating me.

3.     I was swabbed w. the white paper device not once but twice. “Under the Constitution, searches in airports are only for the purpose of protecting the security of airline transportation; they are not general law enforcement stops.”

All of this that I went through was for nothing.  I had nothing on my person and this was simply a violation of my rights, a sign of the decay of American ideals and dreams, and the use of arbitrary power directed at me from an unidentified person with what appears to be immunity for the decisions that are made from their remote room and in which I as a person have no right to confront or question. 

These are the signs of a police state.

Fraternal Twins from Mixed Race Couples

Fraternal Twins from Mixed Race Couples

Only in recent times, and specifically after the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, has miscegenation, or the intermixing of different races in marriage, become generally socially accepted within America.  This means, that now more than ever, there are more mixed race relations of all races within America, and these relations will produce offspring who would logically be considered to be of mixed race and those children will go on to have children of their own and so forth.  We can see this demonstrated in census and other government surveys to which more and more people embrace and identify themselves as being of "mixed race".

The skin color, the overall look, height, and facial characteristics that children will receive from their birth parents is dependent upon the mixture of the genes from each parent, to which those percentages are not the same from one birth to another, so that while brothers and sisters will have the exact same parents, their looks will vary, sometimes quite considerably from child to child.  Obviously then, In situations, in which a mixed couple procreates, the extremes of difference in look will be far greater in degree than from those that are married that are closer in complexion and/or of the same race to begin with. 

In America, there is a historic legacy of prejudice against minorities, in which in particular those of the black race have been treated poorly, in fact, a significant percentage of the blacks here in America can trace their ancestry back to the time of their ancestor's enslavement in America.  This type of historic prejudice against blacks is not the type of color prejudice that can simply disappear over a short period of time, and although it has been minimized significantly since the Civil Rights era, it still exists in this country today, despite whatever laws and Constitutional protections that are granted to all citizens, regardless of race, creed, or former servitude.

The thing about fraternal twins from mixed race couples that makes this area of social interaction, so intriguing, is the fact that these twins are born at the same time from the same parents and live in the same household.  This would imply that no matter the difference in skin color or general look that they will have, that all things being equal, if there was no skin prejudice or racial prejudice in America, whether one twin was lighter or more Caucasian looking, would not make any material difference in these twin's overall success and social acceptance in America, to which their accomplishments or lack thereof in aggregate would be approximately the same. 

This means that the study of fraternal twins of mixed race couples, especially in instances to which the twins have meaningful pigmentation differences in their complexion, should be looked carefully at, as the results of such a study would say a lot as to whether America is a country that lives up to its bold words of freedom and equality for all, or rather if America, mouths the words, but fails significantly in living up to that legacy.

The experience of America to date, which while making meaningful progress in racial harmony and equality since the Civil Rights era, is that far too often, people are categorized based upon the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character, and further to this, that this prejudice begins quite early and is systemic, persistent, prevalent, and insidious.