"Throughout the Christian world, biblical scholars and their hair-dressers are reeling in the wake of the recently-discovered Gospel of Judas.
The Gospel of Judas was among the many biblical-era texts not included in the original canon by Constantin and the Counsel of Nicaea in the 4th century. Collectively known as the Gnostic Gospels, these rejected text are considered heretical by Christian leaders and are rarely found at used book sales. The Gnostic Gospels, which also include the books of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Albert and Mort, portray Jesus in a more human light with many of the same issues facing any middle-aged guy.
Of all the Gnostic texts, the Gospel of Judas has created the greatest stir among Biblical scholars because it paints a dramatically different picture of the Crucifixion story:
Judas Did Not Betray Jesus: The Gospel of Judas sheds new light on the accepted belief that Judas betrayed Jesus to the Sanhedrin. According to Dr. Martin Schoerson, Head of Biblical Studies and Fashion Design at Long Island Community College and Day Spa: 'The Gospel of Judas introduces someone named Kurt into the Crucifixion story. Kurt, the son of Ephram who beget Barry and Todd, apparently had a number of outstanding parking tickets and may have sold his soul to wipe the slate clean with the local Centurions.
The resurrection happened on Tuesday: Judas maintains that it took Jesus five days to rise from the dead; not three, as proclaimed in the official Gospels. "I always thought the three day story was a little too tidy," said Dr. Ronald McClean, head of Biblical merchandise for The National Hockey League." He added: "I believe Emperor Constantin opted for a three-day resurrection story because he felt that no company in the world would buy into a five-day Easter holiday."
Mary Magdalene was not with Jesus at the Last Supper: This long-standing debate, fueled in recent years by Dan Brown's best-selling novel "The DaVinci Code," is challenged by the Gospel of Judas. According to Judas, Mary was not at the Last Supper because she was hosting her book club on that particular Thursday.
The Last Supper was a raucous affair: The official Gospels paint a scene of relative harmony as the disciples congregate to break bread with their Lord for the last time. But according to Judas, the Last Supper was anything but harmonious. Judas claims that there were problems from the start as the restaurant had difficulty seating the party of 13 immediately due to an unexpected rush that night. There were also issues about which of the disciples would sit closest to their Savior. It was finally agreed that everyone would rotate throughout the evening, although there was still much grumbling. Judas also claims that a number of disciples were vegetarians who complained about the serving of the Pascal Lamb. Others disciples were apparently distressed that only red wine was ordered for the tables. The translation states that Peter asks "Why cannot the blood of Christ be a crisp Chateau Ste. Michelle Chardonnay?" Finally, according to Judas, the night ended on a particularly sour note when the check arrived and sat on the table for what "seemed like an eternity.' It is suggested that Jesus picked up the check in exasperation saying "None of you will repay me." The official Gospels claim that Jesus ended the Last Supper by saying: "One of you will betray me."
Despite widespread challenges to the book's authenticity within Christian circles, The Gospel of Judas is being embraced as a significant find by many scholars. "It's the real thing," proclaimed Alan Peterson, Senior Purchasing Manager of Housewares and Antiquities for J.C. Penney. "Through carbon-dating, we determined that the coffee stain on the back cover was made in the Spring of 33AD. We're thrilled about this momentous discovery and, at $39.99, think it will be a big seller for the Easter holiday."
Friday, April 10, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
To Jay on St. Patrick's Day
My son is adopted and 100% Irish. Every St. Patrick's Day, I have a pint of Guinness to celebrate the blessing I was given when he came into my life. He is a truly remarkable young man and I am so proud to be his father.
Someone sent this Irish friendship greeting and, in honor of my son and his birth-parents, I share it with the world:
AN IRISH FRIENDSHIP WISH
May there always be work for your hands to do;
May your purse always hold a coin or two;
May the sun always shine on your windowpane;
May a rainbow be certain to follow each rain;
May the hand of a friend always be near you;
May God fill your heart with gladness to cheer you
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
Someone sent this Irish friendship greeting and, in honor of my son and his birth-parents, I share it with the world:
AN IRISH FRIENDSHIP WISH
May there always be work for your hands to do;
May your purse always hold a coin or two;
May the sun always shine on your windowpane;
May a rainbow be certain to follow each rain;
May the hand of a friend always be near you;
May God fill your heart with gladness to cheer you
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
Saturday, February 28, 2009
The Great Netflix Bait & Switch
My 13-year old son and I love to watch movies. He's now getting old enough to be introduced to many of the classics, such as The Godfather, Dr. Strangelove and others.
We recently hooked up XBox Live to our big screen. Knowing that I was a movie lover, a friend suggested that I look into streaming NetFlix films directly our TV through the XBox. How cool was that? I'm thinking that my days of spending $4 a movie at Blockbuster where over. I went on to Netflix and, as it happens, they were having a FREE trial offer. I chose the $8.99 plan which is perfect for the Xbox deal because it gives me unlimited access to as many movies as I can watch each month. AND no worrying about mailing them back in. I had arrived in movie-lover's heaven! Or, so I thought.
After giving up my credit card information I was invited to browse the Netflix library to add movies to my queue. It was only after building my queue with about 40 classics that I realized I had been had. Only a handful of the movies in my queue were available for Instant viewing through the Xbox connection. Upon digging a little deeper I came across the "instant" library which was comprised of the movies that fall under the Xbox deal. It is an absolutely pathetic collection of mostly straight-to-video films with a smattering of "better" movies thrown in. Of the Netflix top 100, only 8 are Xbox eligible. You can imagine how excited I will be to see the laugh-riot "Victor Victoria" one more time.
My son asked me if Netflix "lied." No, they didn't lie. But they painted a very misleading picture of what is included in this offer. What their PR machine was touting as a groundbreaking partnership with Microsoft is, in my opinion, a bait & switch scheme.
I was really excited about what I believed would be a truly great way to introduce my son to some of the greatest movies of all time. As it now stands, it's time to head back to Blockbuster.
Thanks Netflix.
We recently hooked up XBox Live to our big screen. Knowing that I was a movie lover, a friend suggested that I look into streaming NetFlix films directly our TV through the XBox. How cool was that? I'm thinking that my days of spending $4 a movie at Blockbuster where over. I went on to Netflix and, as it happens, they were having a FREE trial offer. I chose the $8.99 plan which is perfect for the Xbox deal because it gives me unlimited access to as many movies as I can watch each month. AND no worrying about mailing them back in. I had arrived in movie-lover's heaven! Or, so I thought.
After giving up my credit card information I was invited to browse the Netflix library to add movies to my queue. It was only after building my queue with about 40 classics that I realized I had been had. Only a handful of the movies in my queue were available for Instant viewing through the Xbox connection. Upon digging a little deeper I came across the "instant" library which was comprised of the movies that fall under the Xbox deal. It is an absolutely pathetic collection of mostly straight-to-video films with a smattering of "better" movies thrown in. Of the Netflix top 100, only 8 are Xbox eligible. You can imagine how excited I will be to see the laugh-riot "Victor Victoria" one more time.
My son asked me if Netflix "lied." No, they didn't lie. But they painted a very misleading picture of what is included in this offer. What their PR machine was touting as a groundbreaking partnership with Microsoft is, in my opinion, a bait & switch scheme.
I was really excited about what I believed would be a truly great way to introduce my son to some of the greatest movies of all time. As it now stands, it's time to head back to Blockbuster.
Thanks Netflix.
Everything Old is New Again
Just read about how the new Late Night with Jimmy Fallon show is going to revolutionize live TV by using the immediacy of technology such as Twitter to maintain an interactive relationship with viewers.
But, for marketers, I think the bigger story is that Fallon is going to incorporate live commercials into the show. This hearkens back to the nascent days of radio and television, when shows were sponsored by national brands and commercials flowed seamlessly into the fabric of the programming. WVXU, a Cincinnati-based public radio station has programming blocks dedicated to re-runs of classic radio shows like Burns & Allen and Fibber McGee and Molly. It's fascinating to hear how commercials blend into the story-lines and would often be extended by the stars through what sounds like impromptu banter. These early radio stars eventually transferred the idea of commercial integration to the new medium of television.
It will be interesting to see if Fallon begins a new trend and one that I've been anticipating for quite some time. We continue to hear that consumers are looking for more authenticity from companies. Perhaps we'll begin to see a "devolution" back to a model of advertising that is more straight-forward and authentic. Perhaps elegantly produced branding messages will begin to give way to simple, direct, factual messaging about a brand's unique qualities.
Beyond greater authenticity, of course, live commercials provide advertisers with a strategy to combat zapping. As DVR penetration approaches critical mass and time-shifting becomes second nature, commercial zapping will be a critical issue for TV advertisers. Commercial integration will be a critical defense mechanism to avoid the zap and live commercials are obviously the easiest way to achieve this integration.
And now a word from our sponsor!
But, for marketers, I think the bigger story is that Fallon is going to incorporate live commercials into the show. This hearkens back to the nascent days of radio and television, when shows were sponsored by national brands and commercials flowed seamlessly into the fabric of the programming. WVXU, a Cincinnati-based public radio station has programming blocks dedicated to re-runs of classic radio shows like Burns & Allen and Fibber McGee and Molly. It's fascinating to hear how commercials blend into the story-lines and would often be extended by the stars through what sounds like impromptu banter. These early radio stars eventually transferred the idea of commercial integration to the new medium of television.
It will be interesting to see if Fallon begins a new trend and one that I've been anticipating for quite some time. We continue to hear that consumers are looking for more authenticity from companies. Perhaps we'll begin to see a "devolution" back to a model of advertising that is more straight-forward and authentic. Perhaps elegantly produced branding messages will begin to give way to simple, direct, factual messaging about a brand's unique qualities.
Beyond greater authenticity, of course, live commercials provide advertisers with a strategy to combat zapping. As DVR penetration approaches critical mass and time-shifting becomes second nature, commercial zapping will be a critical issue for TV advertisers. Commercial integration will be a critical defense mechanism to avoid the zap and live commercials are obviously the easiest way to achieve this integration.
And now a word from our sponsor!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Recalling Lent
I just read a piece in the Wall Street Journal about this year's new spiritual under-taking: adults who are "giving up" Facebook for Lent.
The article took me back to my youth in the steel-mill suburbs of Pittsburgh. I grew up in a Christian Orthodox family, with a Ukranian Orthodox mother and a Russian Orthodox father. Our faith (or, in my case, lack of faith) was built on a foundation of confession, holy communion, incense, a love of the Virgin Mary and deep-seeded guilt. We were, essentially, like Roman Catholics except, as my mother would say, "we don't report to the Pope."
Lent was a very big deal in our family as it was a prelude to the Super Bowl of religious holidays, Easter. There would be no Christianity without the story of those three days when Jesus suffered on the cross, was buried and rose from the dead. My mother focused most of her energy on the suffering part of the story as commemorated through the tradition of Lent. To the unaware, Lent recalls the biblical tale of Jesus going out into the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights (to do what, I am not sure). To pay homage to this story, many Christians sacrifice something of importance during the 40 days between Ash Wednesday and Easter.
In our family, the week leading up to the start of Lent was rife with tension. We had numerous and lengthy, Camp David-like negotiating sessions during which my sister and I would submit our proposed Lenton observations for my mother's approval. Being a savvy negotiator, I'd start the proceedings by putting a long-shot on the table in the hopes that I would catch mom in a weak and/or (rarely) generous moment. "We'll give up liver and onions," I would proudly proclaim. Mom was wise to my liver gambit ever since the day she forced me (I think at gunpoint, but can't be 100% sure) to eat liver and onions for dinner only to have me heave it back up on the dinner table (it was the last time I've ever eaten liver and onions).
With liver off the table (pun intended), we would negotiate into the night, working our way through the major food groups. But mom was simply too good and her resolve, resolute. Without fail, the Lenton negotiations came down to my having to sacrifice the one thing that sustained me during my youth: Charles Potato Chips. Charles Chips came in a large aluminum can and were delivered fresh to our door every Wednesday afternoon. Mom knew that 40 days without Charles Chips represented the ultimate sacrifice and would put me in good stead with God.
As a last gasp maneuver, I would enlist the aid of my father to undermine my mother's position. Unfortunately, in our home, dad was Switzerland. As a neurtral observer, he had little interest in upsetting the delicate socio-political balance of our family unit. In other words, he didn't want to piss off my mother. He responded to my entreaties for intervention with a simple: "Do what your mother says." Dad knew then what I've come to learn through years of personal experience: "If mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."
This post was prompted both by the WSJ article and my recent decision to observe Lent again, after a 30+ year hiatus. As a child, Lent, and to a larger degree, the Easter holiday, was about suffering. I had no choice but to make a sacrifice, even though its significance was never fully explained to me. As a non-practicing adult, I have come to see Lent from a different perspective: as a period of cleansing, contemplation and meditation. It's about taking a small portion of your life to be mindful, not necessarily sacrificial. It's about looking within, not doing without.
Having moved beyond my Charles Chip addiction, I will refrain from the consumption of caffeine during the Lenton season which begins Wednesday.
Any other observers out there?
The article took me back to my youth in the steel-mill suburbs of Pittsburgh. I grew up in a Christian Orthodox family, with a Ukranian Orthodox mother and a Russian Orthodox father. Our faith (or, in my case, lack of faith) was built on a foundation of confession, holy communion, incense, a love of the Virgin Mary and deep-seeded guilt. We were, essentially, like Roman Catholics except, as my mother would say, "we don't report to the Pope."
Lent was a very big deal in our family as it was a prelude to the Super Bowl of religious holidays, Easter. There would be no Christianity without the story of those three days when Jesus suffered on the cross, was buried and rose from the dead. My mother focused most of her energy on the suffering part of the story as commemorated through the tradition of Lent. To the unaware, Lent recalls the biblical tale of Jesus going out into the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights (to do what, I am not sure). To pay homage to this story, many Christians sacrifice something of importance during the 40 days between Ash Wednesday and Easter.
In our family, the week leading up to the start of Lent was rife with tension. We had numerous and lengthy, Camp David-like negotiating sessions during which my sister and I would submit our proposed Lenton observations for my mother's approval. Being a savvy negotiator, I'd start the proceedings by putting a long-shot on the table in the hopes that I would catch mom in a weak and/or (rarely) generous moment. "We'll give up liver and onions," I would proudly proclaim. Mom was wise to my liver gambit ever since the day she forced me (I think at gunpoint, but can't be 100% sure) to eat liver and onions for dinner only to have me heave it back up on the dinner table (it was the last time I've ever eaten liver and onions).
With liver off the table (pun intended), we would negotiate into the night, working our way through the major food groups. But mom was simply too good and her resolve, resolute. Without fail, the Lenton negotiations came down to my having to sacrifice the one thing that sustained me during my youth: Charles Potato Chips. Charles Chips came in a large aluminum can and were delivered fresh to our door every Wednesday afternoon. Mom knew that 40 days without Charles Chips represented the ultimate sacrifice and would put me in good stead with God.
As a last gasp maneuver, I would enlist the aid of my father to undermine my mother's position. Unfortunately, in our home, dad was Switzerland. As a neurtral observer, he had little interest in upsetting the delicate socio-political balance of our family unit. In other words, he didn't want to piss off my mother. He responded to my entreaties for intervention with a simple: "Do what your mother says." Dad knew then what I've come to learn through years of personal experience: "If mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."
This post was prompted both by the WSJ article and my recent decision to observe Lent again, after a 30+ year hiatus. As a child, Lent, and to a larger degree, the Easter holiday, was about suffering. I had no choice but to make a sacrifice, even though its significance was never fully explained to me. As a non-practicing adult, I have come to see Lent from a different perspective: as a period of cleansing, contemplation and meditation. It's about taking a small portion of your life to be mindful, not necessarily sacrificial. It's about looking within, not doing without.
Having moved beyond my Charles Chip addiction, I will refrain from the consumption of caffeine during the Lenton season which begins Wednesday.
Any other observers out there?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Mel Karmizan's Miracle Solution
It was just announced that John Malone's Liberty Media will bail out Mel Karmizan's Sirrius/XM Satellite radio network for a half a billion bucks.
Frankly, I don't get it. What does Malone see in satellite radio? I wrote about Sirrius last week. I continue to sample the satellite dial in search of something interesting enough to make me want to shell out $10 a month. And I still haven't found what I'm looking for.
The thing that really jumps out at me as I listen more closely is the dearth of simply awful commercials. It seems like every break is populated with commercials touting the next miracle solution: debt solutions, male enhancement solutions, dating solutions, weight loss solutions, colon-cleansing solutions, bad-breath solutions. Satellite radio is late night TV "yell & sell" advertising on Alex Rodriquez-endorsed steroids.
What gets me back to the premise of this post: what would prompt Malone to dish out a boat-load of cash to salvage something with little, inherent consumer value?
Unless, of course, the idea of being Mel Karmizan's boss is too irresistible to pass up.
Frankly, I don't get it. What does Malone see in satellite radio? I wrote about Sirrius last week. I continue to sample the satellite dial in search of something interesting enough to make me want to shell out $10 a month. And I still haven't found what I'm looking for.
The thing that really jumps out at me as I listen more closely is the dearth of simply awful commercials. It seems like every break is populated with commercials touting the next miracle solution: debt solutions, male enhancement solutions, dating solutions, weight loss solutions, colon-cleansing solutions, bad-breath solutions. Satellite radio is late night TV "yell & sell" advertising on Alex Rodriquez-endorsed steroids.
What gets me back to the premise of this post: what would prompt Malone to dish out a boat-load of cash to salvage something with little, inherent consumer value?
Unless, of course, the idea of being Mel Karmizan's boss is too irresistible to pass up.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Twitter and Branding
This was an interesting piece related to using Twitter as a Branding tool.
Many Brands are dabbling in Facebook, Twitter, et. al. Unfortunately, this dabbling is often done without a coherent strategy.
The point below make a lot of sense to me.
February 13, 2009
Activating A Brand On Twitter
By Max Kalehoff
Do you like speaking with humans or inanimate objects?
I think most people prefer to speak with humans, and that's especially true when it comes to interacting with companies. In fact, customers get frustrated when companies limit or dehumanize interaction, especially when product or customer service is involved.
That's probably why personal blogs authored by employees often resonate better than official corporate blogs. And why corporate blogs that include more human elements, including strong personal profiles, resonate more than ones with less.
All this makes me wonder about micro-blogging, specifically Twitter. I'm not going to debate whether your brand should be on Twitter. I'll just say that your brand should be where your customers are, and that often is on Twitter.
But what's the right way for a brand to activate itself on Twitter? Specifically, is it better for companies to actively engage on Twitter with a brand profile, or a human profile?
To be sure, some companies use their standalone brands for their Twitter username, the core element of a profile. Consider Southwest Arlines, or @southwestair, widely considered successful and useful to customers.
Other companies use a hybrid of brand and employee names. Consider Zappos, another success. Its main profile username is @zappos, but it clearly indicates in the bio and profile page that the author is Tony Hsieh, the company's CEO. There also are companies that have profiles that use hybrid usernames, incorporating employee names and the brand. Consider Lionel Menchaca at Dell, whose username is @LionelatDell.
There are also companies that activate on Twitter only via employees' personal profiles, either by design or accident. Consider AdWeek with its ubiquitous digital reporter, or http://twitter.com/bmorrissey @bmorrissey.
Which form is best? It depends on your objective and the relationship your customers have with your brand. Ultimately, you should use any social-media platform in whichever way works best for you. But marketers must consider that customers usually prefer interactions that are more human, not less. I found this out through my own experience on Twitter.
Here's my story: I've been on Twitter a few years and have remained an active user with my personal profile, @maxkalehoff . When I joined Clickable, my search-technology startup, I immediately claimed our company's profile and username on Twitter, @clickable. When we launched our product commercially in late 2008, I began using our company profile to alert customers and other stakeholders to company news, including new product features, service updates, and events, among other.
But I also started using our company Twitter profile to conduct customer service and business development interactions. Whenever I identified problems and opportunities through monitoring, or received inbound questions, I'd respond. And that's where I noticed the limit of a brand profile. Compared to my personal profile, interactions simply were not as engaging or rich. When I reverted to my personal profile to conduct Clickable business, I found receptivity to be far higher. This was especially apparent with Twitter members whom I'd never interacted with before.
As a result, I now maintain our company profile on Twitter, and use it primarily as an alert channel. But if I need to interact with customers or other stakeholders, I'll defer to my personal profile, which clearly indicates my company affiliation. At first, I was reluctant to mix my personal profile directly with work. But I eventually realized that maintaining two identities not only is increasingly difficult, but artificial. We are who we are and we have to bank on our own transparency and common sense.
While our strategy works for our startup, I acknowledge we'll need to adapt it as social platforms and our company mature. But however we grow, I'm committed to maintaining as much humanity and personality as possible. People prefer that, and we'd rather connect with our customers in a more meaningful way.
What form of Twitter profile works for you?
Many Brands are dabbling in Facebook, Twitter, et. al. Unfortunately, this dabbling is often done without a coherent strategy.
The point below make a lot of sense to me.
February 13, 2009
Activating A Brand On Twitter
By Max Kalehoff
Do you like speaking with humans or inanimate objects?
I think most people prefer to speak with humans, and that's especially true when it comes to interacting with companies. In fact, customers get frustrated when companies limit or dehumanize interaction, especially when product or customer service is involved.
That's probably why personal blogs authored by employees often resonate better than official corporate blogs. And why corporate blogs that include more human elements, including strong personal profiles, resonate more than ones with less.
All this makes me wonder about micro-blogging, specifically Twitter. I'm not going to debate whether your brand should be on Twitter. I'll just say that your brand should be where your customers are, and that often is on Twitter.
But what's the right way for a brand to activate itself on Twitter? Specifically, is it better for companies to actively engage on Twitter with a brand profile, or a human profile?
To be sure, some companies use their standalone brands for their Twitter username, the core element of a profile. Consider Southwest Arlines, or @southwestair, widely considered successful and useful to customers.
Other companies use a hybrid of brand and employee names. Consider Zappos, another success. Its main profile username is @zappos, but it clearly indicates in the bio and profile page that the author is Tony Hsieh, the company's CEO. There also are companies that have profiles that use hybrid usernames, incorporating employee names and the brand. Consider Lionel Menchaca at Dell, whose username is @LionelatDell.
There are also companies that activate on Twitter only via employees' personal profiles, either by design or accident. Consider AdWeek with its ubiquitous digital reporter, or http://twitter.com/bmorrissey @bmorrissey.
Which form is best? It depends on your objective and the relationship your customers have with your brand. Ultimately, you should use any social-media platform in whichever way works best for you. But marketers must consider that customers usually prefer interactions that are more human, not less. I found this out through my own experience on Twitter.
Here's my story: I've been on Twitter a few years and have remained an active user with my personal profile, @maxkalehoff . When I joined Clickable, my search-technology startup, I immediately claimed our company's profile and username on Twitter, @clickable. When we launched our product commercially in late 2008, I began using our company profile to alert customers and other stakeholders to company news, including new product features, service updates, and events, among other.
But I also started using our company Twitter profile to conduct customer service and business development interactions. Whenever I identified problems and opportunities through monitoring, or received inbound questions, I'd respond. And that's where I noticed the limit of a brand profile. Compared to my personal profile, interactions simply were not as engaging or rich. When I reverted to my personal profile to conduct Clickable business, I found receptivity to be far higher. This was especially apparent with Twitter members whom I'd never interacted with before.
As a result, I now maintain our company profile on Twitter, and use it primarily as an alert channel. But if I need to interact with customers or other stakeholders, I'll defer to my personal profile, which clearly indicates my company affiliation. At first, I was reluctant to mix my personal profile directly with work. But I eventually realized that maintaining two identities not only is increasingly difficult, but artificial. We are who we are and we have to bank on our own transparency and common sense.
While our strategy works for our startup, I acknowledge we'll need to adapt it as social platforms and our company mature. But however we grow, I'm committed to maintaining as much humanity and personality as possible. People prefer that, and we'd rather connect with our customers in a more meaningful way.
What form of Twitter profile works for you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
