- RT @bargainr: Life in North Korea is absolutely dreadful http://nyti.ms/dAcL26 #
- RT @bitfs: Weekly Favorites and Gratitude!: My Favorite Posts this Week Jeff at Deliver Away Debt threw together the .. http://bit.ly/9J0gGo #
- @LiveRealNow is giving away a copy of Delivering Happiness(@dhbook). Follow and RT to enter. http://bit.ly/czd31X # #
- Baseless claims, biased assumptions, poor understanding of history. Don't bother. #AnimalSpirits #KeynesianCult #
- RT @zappos: Super exciting! "Delivering Happiness" hit #1 on NY Times Bestseller list! Thanks everyone! Details: http://bit.ly/96vEfF #
- @ericabiz Funny, we found a kitten in a box last week. Unfortunately, it was abandoned there, not playing. Now, we have a 5th cat. in reply to ericabiz #
Whose Line Is It Anyway? Why do some shows return from the dead?
Watching TV in the summer used to mean surfing channels of reruns, but lately there seems to be a slew of “new” shows that are repeating old ones. Networks and cable channels are bringing back previously popular shows such as “Whose Line is it Anyway?”, “Hawaii Five-O”, and “Dynasty”. While some people are thrilled that their favorite shows are back, a lot more of us are wondering why we need to keep rehashing the past.
The answer isn’t that the networks have suddenly become nostalgic. With increasing competition from internet videos and more cable channels, many TV networks have seen their profit from advertising drop in the past several years. More worrisome for the networks, many economists are predicting that the model of having companies pay for advertising during show breaks will become obsolete over the next decade.
These factors mean that TV stations are not very willing to take risks with new shows. A new drama or science fiction show can take millions of dollars to produce, and in some cases it will be pulled within a few episodes if it fails to catch on. When reviving an old show, a network has some guarantee that it will be popular. While not every remake catches on (Charlie’s Angels anyone?), a remake will usually attract enough interest to make the first episode a success.
The costs to produce these shows are also much lower than “new” shows. In many cases, networks already own the property rights to the show as well as contracts with many of the former actors, directors, and producers. In several cases, they also have access to props, costumes, and set pieces. Because of this, they can produce a pilot for a much lower costs than a “new” show.
Finally, advertisers like the idea of bringing back a show. While a network usually has to struggle to find sponsors for shows that don’t have a full season of Nielsen data to show, they can easily sell a show that advertisers are already familiar with. Furthermore, advertisers like that they know what to expect. Without seeing a single episode, an advertiser can accurately guess at the demographic that will be attracted to the show just by looking at the data from the original show. Because advertisers are familiar with the plot of these shows, they are also more willing to negotiate for product placement within the show itself. In some cases, advertisers have even suggested how their product could be incorporated into an episode before the first script is even finalized.
Related articles
Nigella Lawson and the High Cost of divorce
Heartache and heartbreak are hard enough to endure but imagine having to go through the loss of a relationship while the world looks on. Such is the high price of celebrity divorce and the latest victim is the beautiful and talented television chef, Nigella Lawson. Shocking photos of Nigella apparently being choked by her husband, Charles Saatchi, surfaced in the media following the June 9th dinner at Scott’s restaurant in Mayfair, London, where the incident occurred. Saatchi’s advisors urged him to humble himself and admit a public apology for the assault. Saatchi denied any wrongdoing, saying he never assaulted her and in fact, was actually removing mucous from his wife’s nose. Nigella was stunned by the admonition of “nose-picking” and his refusal to apologize. She left Saatchi and their family home in Chelsea.
The two sides continued to disagree about the pictures; Saatchi claiming it was just a “playful tiff” and Lawson hurt and humiliated by the public’s assumption of her as victim of domestic violence and her husband as her tormentor. Insult was added to injury on July 7th, when Saatchi announced his intent to divorce his wife in the media instead of directly to her. Lawson, who had been waiting for a public apology, was blind-sided by his cruel divorce announcement. Lawson and Saatchi have been married for 10 years; Saatchi has claimed that the couple had become “estranged” the last few years. Saatchi claims that he had no choice but to act publicly since his wife “failed to defend” him with a statement to the media. In fact, Lawson has remained silent at the advice of her publicist so as not to further affect their children. Lawson (53) and Saatchi (70) have three teenage children from previous marriages that they were raising together.In addition to the “he said, she said” controversy, Lawson and Saatchi will have to fight over $150 million in shared assets, including their $12 million Chelsea, West London home. Both brought substantial assets into the marriage. Charles Saatchi is worth $100 million from the high-profile, highly-successful New York advertising firm, Saatchi and Saatchi. Nigella Lawson is a celebrity chef, bestselling author and television star with a net worth of $15 million. By the time lawyers for both sides duke it out in court and attempt to untangle the shared assets, those net worths will be considerably less.But it’s not just a monetary cost to this celebrity divorce. Saatchi had grown increasingly resentful of his wife’s high-profile career that he helped established. It’s a common theme in celebrity couples; one partner becomes the higher earner or the more recognized celebrity and the other gets bit by that green-eyed monster, jealousy. In Nigella’s case, there is the public humiliation at the hands of someone she loves to endure. It seems that Saatchi is determined to do whatever he can to make her suffer in the media. And then there are the children; children always suffer in a divorce. It can be lessened when parents work together to keep it private and amicable. But it’s incredibly painful to have your lives dragged through the media. In this case, it is Nigella and Saatchi’s children that are paying the ultimate price.
Related articles
Focusing on the Now
My company uses a service called KnowYourCompany, that sends three emails each week to the entire staff. Each email asks a question that the staff can either respond to publicly, or just to the company leadership team.
The questions follow a formula.
On Monday, we get an email asking what we are working on. This allows us to see what everyone is doing, and in theory, makes offering your skills easier to do because you can see what you might be able to help with.
On Wednesday, the question is something about the company or our interaction with the company. One week this question was as simple as “Are there any company policies that aren’t completely clear?”
On Friday, the question is more personal. It’s a getting-to-know-each-other question. Last Friday’s question was “What’s something you want to do in the next year that you’ve never done before?”
I found that I don’t have an answer.
Right now, I don’t have any long-term goals. Recently, my personal life has been complicated enough that the idea of planning for later this year–much less the next 5 or 10 years–is more than I can deal with.
My side hustle goals are focused entirely on what needs to happen in the next week. Work goals are only a month out. My personal goals involve making it through the next few days without letting anything collapse.
Sometimes, life kicks you in the crotch so hard, you have to let the future worry about itself while you focus on what’s happening right now. Without a functional present, the future doesn’t matter. You have to focus on the Now first, or everything else evaporates.
It’s not a great situation, but it is an interesting perspective. I’ve spent so much of the last decade focusing on what comes next that what’s happening right now has suffered.
Focus on Now. Sometimes, What’s Next can take care of itself for a while.
Future Me Returns
This is a conversation between me and my future self, if my financial path wouldn’t have positively forked 2 years ago. The transcript is available here.
What would your future self have to say to you?
Does Amanda Bynes Need a Conservatorship?
The publicly documented downward spiral of Amanda Bynes may be reaching its breaking point. She has been on psychiatric lockdown for the past three days, and her parents are petitioning for conservatorship in California
on the grounds that they believe she is suffering from acute schizophrenia. They claim that the troubled starlet is unable to make safe decisions regarding her own well-being, not to mention the safety of others. The issue is complex, but the former childhood star has demonstrated that she meets the criteria to have external guardians instated to protect her from unpredictably irrational behaviors.
This development is the latest in a long saga of antics for Bynes, and the recent news report inserts a tragic twist into her somewhat comedic downfall. She had a pristine public persona only a year ago; however, at this time, she was caught publicly smoking marijuana. No one expected this incident to escalate, and it was treated like an innocent youthful infraction; however, the act recently turned criminal when she was reported for smoking in the lobby of her apartment complex.The comedian ran from the arriving police officers, and hurled a large cannabis apparatus out of a skyscraper window. The water-pipe was never found, but it presumably shattered upon impact. Bynes was incarcerated by the New York Police Department. During this time, the actress accused law enforcement of sexual assaulting her in a very lewd manner. Her absurd claims were never substantiated. The case against her is pending, and she has been evicted from her residence.
This was not the first criminal case against Bynes; she is also dealing with hit-and-run allegations in California. It was also not her last interaction with the police. Most recently, the actress doused an elderly woman’s driveway in gasoline and set it ablaze. She accidentally covered a puppy in the flammable liquid, so she ran down the block looking for something to save the animal from catching fire. After ransacking a convenience store, officers accosted her. The exchange resulted in the psychiatric hold that has been placed on Bynes.
Unfortunately, grounds for conservatorship can be exceedingly challenging to meet. Clear proof of mental illness needs to provided, and the standards are rigidly strict; however, if anyone has showcased the fanatical craziness that constitutes a lack of personal responsibility, it is Amanda Bynes.
Her schizophrenia is no longer dormant. The actress has become obsessed with plastic surgery, and she has deformed her face with cheek piercings. She uses online social networks to decry public figures for their ugliness. Victims of this attack include even Barack and Michelle Obama. Furthermore, she makes offensive sexual remarks towards rappers, and she wants to be a hip-hop artist herself. She has spent fortunes on a wig collection, and she employs a different style at every court appearance. The actress even used one as a disguise for an incognito trip to a trampoline emporium.
Anyone that has seen her Nickelodeon program would not be shocked to learn that she was schizophrenic. The role had her switching between dozens of identities for different skits, and she even played a character that was, in effect, obsessively stalking the star herself. “The Amanda Show” was neurotically fast-paced. Ultimately, the entire program can now be viewed as an eerie foreshadowing to the budding of a latent psychological disorder. If the legal standards of insanity are not met, then she will be free to wreak havoc on herself and others.
