Lost in Translation?

Last night I was intent on watching one of my favorite movies: “The King of New York,” starring Christopher Walken and Lawrence Fishburne. I went to Walmart, Target and Best Buy-all three of which did not have it. Determined to find the movie, I whipped out my smart phone and looked for a movie rental store in my area; according to Google maps, the closest movie rental store was three towns over-about a 20 minute drive. I took the journey to one of the few remaining movie rental stores in my state, and low and behold they had the movie which I so desperately sought! BUT, they only had “The King of New York” on VHS. VHS? Are you kidding me. I haven’t watched a movie on VHS in over a decade. The rental store seemed like a museum full of ancient artifacts. Dust ridden VHS movies lined the shelves; I felt like I was on an archeological excursion. The guy told me it would only cost me 5 bucks to become a member and the first movie would be free- my reply: “Dude how much to buy the movie?” I’m not proud to admit it, but I paid $14 for “The King of New York” on VHS. I got back to my car and a thought struck me like a lightning bolt: do I even have a VHS player anymore?

After perusing my basement and shed, I found the coveted treasure in my attic. The VHS player had to weigh 30 pounds. I hooked it up to the T.V. in my living room, changed the input, and turned it to “channel 3.” Remember Channel 3? Just to make sure the VHS player still worked after so many years of collecting dust, I put an old Disney movie in that was sitting next to the player when I found it: “Dumbo.” I threw in Dumbo, heard the VHS click and start to wind, and there came Dumbo the Elephant on my screen. I watched didn’t move or flinch at all as I gazed in amazement. I had some kind of indescribable nostalgic experience, with the lines running across the screen and a little fuzziness as the tape played. I immediately thought of a time when my father and I were having a hard time getting a movie to work when I was a child; we had to take the VHS out blow on it, huff and puff, and then put it back in with our fingers crossed. As I reminisced, I thought to myself- has something been lost in translation? Technological advances are beneficial right? Or do we lose something as technological norms are displaced?

Obviously DVD’s are indisputably superior technology to VHS. However, as rapid advancements in technology continue to displace the “old” with the “new” do we lose something, or are we only gaining? DVD’s are certainly more efficient than VHS, Blue Ray looks a lot cooler, and now most people don’t even bother buying an actual tangible product-they simply download it off the internet, or use their Netflix account. Of course things get easier and more efficient, but is that everything?

The other day, I was on the train reading my Kindle (by the way I’m not a Kindle kind of guy, but my Mom bought it for me so I feel like I’m obliged to use it from time to time) and I looked over at an attractive girl reading “The Great Gatsby.” I thought to myself, “that’s my type of girl.” She’s attractive and reading one of my all-time favorite novels. I learned something about her and her personality simply by looking at what she was reading. When she looked at me, (which she probably didn’t) I was just some guy reading his Kindle. She didn’t know what I was reading, what I was interested in or anything about my personality. Of course the Kindle is an amazing invention, but do we lose something when we discard real book? Does convenience and efficiency outweigh personalization? More and more people are using Netflix, on Demand and other ways of Downloading movies, instead of buying the actual DVD. Most of you probably forgot, but DVD’s have cases with the Title and usually some cool picture of the main character etc. I always love when I go to someone’s house and they have a gigantic DVD collection-you can learn so much about a person just by looking at it. I was at a house party once and there was a DVD case sitting on a coffee table. A girl that I had just met made a comment about the movie, which happened to be one of my favorite comedies. That started a conversation between the two of us, we related to one another, and as it turns out, we went on a few dates after. I guess preferences in movies are not the only criterion for a long lasting relationship, because it didn’t last. Anyway, I think I’m trying to say that technological innovation has a myriad of benefits. However, with that said, along with those pros come cons. If I go to someone’s house, I’m not going to check their Netflix Queue to learn about their tastes and preferences. But if I go to that same person’s house and they have a DVD collection, then we just might have something to talk about. Comments, disagreements hate mail?? Always welcome.

D. Spinelli

How to Create Cool in Today’s Marketplace

Today we live in a cluttered marketplace where producers and companies alike, compete with one another to claim the throne of whatever niche they are appealing to. It is no secret that major corporations hire “Think Tanks” and consulting firms in their quest to stand out, or rather create the next “Big Thing.” The reality is that today’s consumer is so savvy that these “hired hands” are somewhat trivial. Todays consumer can readily sniff out B.S. from the real deal. So, the real question is: how do you or a company create “cool,” or rather the next big thing. Is “cool” an entity that can be manufactured through research and field studies?-paying consumers to test products like lab rats, in order to decide whether or not a product, or nuance on a product will thrive in the contemporary market. When I say “cool,” I mean sleek, innovative, appealing-the next “Big Thing.” The next Ipod?

Before the ipod, there were a myriad of other listening devices. We had the cassette player, then the disc man, then the MP3 players. The MP3 players were the creme de la creme, right? Who would of thought that anything would displace these devices? Umm, Steve Jobs? In my mind, Steve Jobs was one of the most innately gifted visionaries every-yes I said EVER. He had the foresight to redefine the way the world listens to music. The ipod mixed a user friendly interface with unparalleled aesthetics. Steve Jobs was not concerned with what people would think about it, or if the ipod would be cool; Jobs had a vision and through that vision he made an everlasting impact on the world. He never stopped; he was always reinventing, redefining, and altering. Jobs never stayed stagnant, but rather constantly innovated. So I guess the real question is: how do you become the next ipod in whatever industry you’re in.

It is my belief that “cool” cannot be manufactured. Cool cannot be outsourced, or thought up by a bunch of executives in a boardroom. “Cool,” as I define it, is the byproduct of a vision, and it can be applied to any industry, product etc. Take for instance, Eminem. Before Em, white rappers weren’t accepted. Nobody thought they were cool, and the audience automatically rejected them. However, Eminem broke through because of his vision. He didn’t care about what other people thought about him or if he would be accepted. He simply put out his visceral music and let the hip hop culture decide whether he was authentic or not (It didn’t hurt that he is one of the most lyrically gifted rappers of all time and backed by Dr. Dre). Em opened rap to a completely new audience-white teenage kids-innovative?

I guess the point I am trying to make, is that a product will not be deemed “cool” unless there is a vision behind it. A company can throw all the money they want into advertising and celebrity promotions, but today that shit doesn’t fool consumers. Vision, constant innovation and the tenacity to never settle is the only way to thrive in today’s inundated marketplace. So what will be the next ipod? I’d love to hear feedback, because I sure as hell don’t know. Until next time.

D. Spinelli

Will Widgets Replace Websites??

During the .com bubble people were buying up websites like they were pieces of real estate: and like the sub-prime mortgage security market, it inevitably imploded. Nowadays, websites are still teeming with activity – many of which cannot even be priced, because they are invaluable. However, these popular web pages are also cluttered with banner adds, pop-ups, etc. Plus, they’re just plainly annoying: a user has to navigate from page to page and constantly move back and forth between different links, and wait for them to load. For these reasons, I believe that widgets will soon replace websites as we have come to know them today. Widgets are constantly open and do not force a user to move back and forth between different pages. They are much easier to use, less time consuming and more aesthetically pleasing. Take Twitter, for example; When you log on to Twitter from a browser, you are forced to navigate the website and back and forth between followers and people following you. A Twitter widget would make life so much easier for the end user. It would stay securely open on your home screen and would save time and make life easier. Websites will die off, and widgets will become increasingly more useful. Thoughts?

-D. Spinelli

Social Apps are Big Business

While a lot of my blogs criticize Facebook for a plethora of reasons, I think we all know that it isn’t going anywhere. While the IPO did not go as planned, the fact remains that the company still has 900 million users. Yes, advertising dollars are down as more people shift to mobile; however, when you have 900 million users and growing, it is impossible not to make a profit. The company needs to change its profit model, and pivot a little bit, but I am confident that it will be back on track-financially speaking. Anyway, while Social “Giants” like Facebook and Twitter get all of the attention, a different social networking channel is growing at an unprecedented rate. “Last month, Vitrue — the social media marketing firm for Facebook advertising — was acquired by Oracle for $300 million. And just this week, customer relations giant Salesforce gobble up Buddy Media, another social media marketing platform, for a cool $745 million. Both Vitrue and Buddy Media happen to be social enterprise apps: tools geared toward helping big businesses capitalize on social media.” These social media tools are being adopted by Big Businesses and Corporations, globally. These social media apps aren’t used to simply keep in touch with existing customers/clients, they expedite a myriad of other functions:saving time, money and energy. Company departments such as Research and Development and Marketing implement these Social Apps in every facet. Social Apps are “Big Business” and are being adopted by “Big Businesses.” Do you think social apps streamline company objectives? Do they help generate more revenue? Have you been engaged by a company’s social app platform, and what was your experience? Love to hear feedback.

D. Spinelli

Why NOW?

The other night I watched “Midnight In Paris,” for what must be at least the fifth time. Another brilliant piece of artwork by Woody Allen, the movie stars Owen Wilson and sheds light on human nature. Own Wilson is infatuated with the intellectual culture that encapsulated Paris in the 1920’s. He admired the geniuses (Picasso, Fitzgerald, Hemingway etc.), the artwork they produced and the overall culture that thrived at this specific place in time. Magically, Owen Wilson’s character (a Hollywood Screenplay writer, but aspiring novelist) is catapulted back in time at the strike of midnight each day he stays in Paris. He mingles with a myriad of these admirable artists and even gets feedback from the famous literary critic Gertrude Stein. Wilson becomes infatuated with a beautiful model from that era, which is paralleled as antithetical to his relationship to his fiancé (a typical arrogant and ostentatious contemporary American woman). However, the climax occurs when Wilson’s character is confronted by a pivotal question by his new found love; she believes that the era before the 1920’s is really the “Golden Age,” and she wants Wilson to come with her. It is at that moment that his character has an epiphany: everyone believes that a different era, a different time or a different place would enhance life. Now let’s segue from the message of the movie to the point that I am trying to convey. Sometimes I look back on the past and wonder if life would be easier, smoother, or less stressful. Would I be better off living during the “Enlightenment?” Would I be better off living in the 1950’s when industry was booming and jobs were plentiful, and life was simpler? I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I would like to give my sentiments. I believe that it is human nature to latch on to things, and believe that these “things” would lead to happiness. It’s a fundamental flaw in human reasoning. If only I had this girlfriend, if only I made X amount of dollars, if only I were a famous writer; this type of reasoning is not only flawed, but it is a recipe for unhappiness. When one thinks this way, they don’t take the holistic view of life into account- it’s this belief that, once I get “there” I will be happy; if only I had “this” I would be happy. One does not ARRIVE at happiness through superficial channels. Happiness is available to all of us NOW. The constant denial of the present moment and need to fulfill an insatiable void that lives in all of us cannot be conquered through people, places or things. Happiness can be obtained by accepting the present moment for what it is. Everything is what it is, and if human beings could intuitively accept this simple concept, there would be much less angst and significantly more peace-internally as well as externally. So just for shits and giggles, say I lived in the 1950’s. I truly believe that times were simpler then. People were not constantly inundated with cell phones buzzing and news feeds slapping them in the face: can technological innovation be directly correlated to unhappiness? Nowadays, everyone and their moms is medicated for something. Dr. I’m anxious um, Xanax. Dr. I’m depressed, umm Prosaic. Dr. my eight year old son is spending too much time outside playing and can’t focus on his SAT preparation, ADERALL. Dr. I can’t get my dick up- that’s a simple remedy right? Is the pervasion of anxiety and depression in other medical “conditions,” connected to the overwhelming nature of technology? Or is the DSM constantly progressing so that more Drs. can diagnose patients and make more $$$$. Americans in the 1950’s weren’t prescribed these medications, and while they weren’t around, I don’t think that they were necessary. In today’s society is the prescription epidemic necessary? And if it is necessary, what accounts for it. As I write this commentary, my smartphone has gone off 15 times-that shit makes me anxious. The need to constantly check my email, apps, Facebook, Linked In accounts etc. adds to the stress in my life: and I can only speak for myself. Too much anxiety can transmute into depression. Is technology creating anxiety, and therefore espousing more cases of depression. Were people just as depressed in the past, or were simpler times easier on the human psyche. I don’t know the answers to these questions, and no matter how much data I look at, I don’t think the question can ever be definitively answered. If I lived in the 50’s I guess I’d miss my PS3; but then again I wouldn’t know that it existed. Hemingway blew his brains out with a shot gun in his early 60’s. So obviously depression has existed for some time. So the big question remains; are anxiety and depression innate conditions that cannot be avoided if you are in that unfortunate state: or is one’s environment the key factor in determining whether one suffers from a psychological ailment. I’m sure it’s a combination of both. Would you be happier in the past? Are you looking for salvation in the future? Is technology making our citizens more anxious/depressed? As always I’d love to hear thoughts, opinions etc. Until next time.

D. Spinelli