Author Archives: Jay Menard

Clothes Make the Man

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

The word itself has a connotation of conformity, but there’s nothing uniform about sports fashions. And, although in public most guys will say we don’t care about how our teams look, deep down inside we know that clothes really do make the man!

A combination of my wife out of town visiting family and being laid up in bed with an illness left me with ample time to watch an inordinate amount of sports. With the television no longer being held hostage and forced to display home decorating shows, I had unfettered access to the sporting landscape and all the colours of which its comprised.

Whether we like to admit it or not, how our teams look has a great deal of influence on where our allegiances lie, and that stylistic selection process begins in our youth. As a kid, I was drawn to the San Diego Chargers not just because of Dan Fouts, but because I thought the lightning bolt design on their helmets were pretty darn cool. Watching a recent Chargers game, with them wearing their throwback jerseys and helmets, I was transported back to that time – and came away from that game a little more invested in the team than I was before I tuned in.

And I’m not alone in being partially swayed by style. Back in the late 80s/early 90s the Oakland/L.A. Raiders silver and black were the colours of choice for gangster rappers – and, as such, became the uniform of choice for their legion of fans and wannabes. This colour scheme’s impact was so great that we had a run on franchises, both new and old, adjusting their look (hello Los Angeles Kings) in order to change their image on the playing surface and in the minds of the buying public. In these cases, the hope was that silver and black would translate into green.

A fan of hockey’s Montreal Canadiens since birth, I have an inborn preference for classic colours and styles. That’s why the Habs’ bleu-blanc-et-rouge appeals to me, whereas the more modern Nashville Predators logo doesn’t strike any chord whatsoever. Overall, most fans appear to prefer the classic styles, and while teams may flirt with extremism, they eventually come back to a happy medium. Look no further than the Phoenix Coyotes whose Picasso-inspired logo has matured into a more traditional design and colour scheme.

The reason for this is, while logos and colour schemes may not preclude someone from becoming a fan, it certainly does weigh in with the amount of pride we can have. I’ve yet to find the soul brave enough to stand up and proudly proclaim his or her love for the Mighty Ducks logo, yet I can watch a Syracuse college football game and be overwhelmed by a sea of orange in the stands.

What it comes down to is that simple is often better. The gold of a Notre Dame helmet carries with it more tradition and majesty than any other logo could convey. Whether it’s monotone hue of Cleveland’s football Browns, baseball’s Yankee Pinstripes, or the green and white of basketball’s Boston Celtics, these colours have been woven into the fabric of our lives and are instantly recognizable.

New franchises — or old ones trade tradition for a quick spike in jersey sales – run the risk of irrelevancy. Closer to home, our Toronto Raptors, established during the Jurassic Park-inspired hysteria for all things dinosaur, now stir up fewer images of Tyrannosaurus Rexes and more thoughts of Barney. And the 90s were rife with new franchises in all sports embracing an entirely new pallet of colours, ranging from teal to aquamarine – colours that may have been trendy, but unable to stand the test of time. Yet, it’s not an exact science. The Montreal Expos, whose name was inspired by the world fair taking place in their city in 1967, served the team well for over three decades.

The problem with market research-inspired jerseys is that, by their very design, they must change when the market does. The appeal of classic styles is that they withstand society’s changing preferences, dynamics, and fashions, never being at the forefront of style, but always being respectable.

Then there are the truly memorable logos and jerseys. Of course, they’re often memorable for all the wrong reasons. Just once! Just once in this era of throwbacks and nostalgia, I’d love to catch the Vancouver Canucks take to the ice in their black, orange, and yellow chevron uniforms. Or how about the purple and gold Kings jerseys with the crown on the front? If it was good enough for Marcel Dionne, it’s good enough for today’s players.

So what becomes a player most and draws fans to the game? Essentially, when it comes to sporting fashions, simple is better. We want a logo, a colour scheme, to be proud of. We want the focus to be on the players and the game, not the uniform.

In sports, as in life, the classics never go out of style.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

NHL’s Thank Yous Ring Hollow

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

For a while last night, I thought it was time to change my contact lenses because I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. Yet, there it was, flickering right on my TV screen. I now know what adding insult to injury actually looks like.

Those of us who watched Thursday’s broadcast of the hockey game between the Montreal Canadiens and New York Rangers were subjected to the sight of the boys from Broadway taking the ice with jerseys bearing the message “Thank You” replacing the customary “New York” lettering.

In an attempt to suck up to fans at all costs, the league has turned it into a dog and pony show – and the sentiments ring hollow.

We know, no matter how much lip service the players pay to being happy to be back, they’re still smarting from the repeated slaps in the face they took during the lockout. “Our boys” found out that our support has its limits and they were genuinely shocked when most fans supported the owners in the labour dispute.

So now these alpha males have come back with their tails firmly between their legs, making the best of a bad situation. And, instead of allowing for a graceful return, the league has decided to rub a little more salt in the still-festering wound. The obviously staged, and eminently hollow, act of wearing “Thank You” jerseys does nothing more than add another side order of shame that the players have to swallow – adding to the already heaping helping of humble pie they’ve been forced to stomach through the negotiation of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Whether it’s “Thank You” emblazoned across the players’ chests, messages expressing the league’s gratitude prominently painted on the ice, or any other displays of affection, we fans aren’t buying it. Aside from a select few naïve people, most hockey fans know that the game we love is actually a business. We know that there are millions upon billions of dollars changing hands. And, although we may not like it, we know that the lockout was just a part of doing business, however unsavoury it may have been.

But it’s becoming more and more apparent that fans are willing to let bygones be bygones. Starting with the circus-like free agency period, to the drama of the entry draft and the Sidney Crosby sweepstakes, to the establishment of new rules (and commitment to enforcing old ones) designed to make the game more entertaining, fans have embraced the excitement of the new season and are eager to get on with our lives.

We’ve accepted the lockout as a necessary evil – an action that the league had to take to maintain the long-term viability of the league and to restore competitive financial balance so that we won’t have to face the loss of another Winnipeg or Quebec City. But we certainly don’t want to be reminded of it on a daily basis.

If the players and the league truly want to show us how much they appreciate our patronage, then they need to do it in the only way that matters – on the ice through effort, intensity, and talent. Thank us by playing hard each and every night. Thank us by displaying the combination of grace, skill, and toughness that makes hockey the most exciting game on Earth.

If they’re really thankful for the fans’ support in returning to the rinks, then take the extra time to get to know your admirers. Sign a few more autographs (without it having to be mandated), make yourself more available to the media for interviews (as this is the only way many fans get to know you), and give the fans the respect they deserve as being the reason behind the lifestyle you live.

And the responsibility to acknowledge the fans isn’t the players’ alone. It’s not enough for the owners to spend a few bucks on new sweaters or a new paint job and call it a day. If they’re truly thankful, as they should be, for fans support, then they need to make a concerted outreach to the fans through spending the money to make attending a game a valued event. Spend the money under the cap to keep teams together and build fan affinity. They need to make more than just a cosmetic display of gratitude.

Nobody likes a suck-up – especially when the motivation for this sycophantic activity appears to be so transparent and false. In large part, the fans are back and the best thank you we as fans can receive would be good, honest effort – both on the ice and off.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Turning Down the Volume on Musak

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

If silence is golden, then why can’t we turn down the volume on that most insidious corporate invention – Musak?

It’s as if we have to have some sort of background noise to drown out the empty spaces of our day. Perish the thought that we could actually talk, think, or enjoy a moment of quiet reflection without some not-so-golden oldie wafting out of the omnipresent speaker system.

Oddly enough, it is considered rude to walk around with a set of headphones so that you can enjoy your own musical selections. And it’s not like people want you to share – considering the looks we throw people who are cranking the tunes in their cars with the windows rolled down, or carrying a ghetto blaster (am I dating myself?) around with them blaring their tunes to the world.

Yet, some corporate entity can choose to drown out your thoughts with their pre-selected, mood-setting song stylings. Pacify the masses with Celine Dion’s back catalogue, because we don’t want someone getting riled up by Led Zeppelin in the freezer aisle and going postal with a package of pre-chopped spinach!

The problem with this mentality is that Musak is offensive by its very attempts to be inoffensive. In an attempt to be as broad-reaching and appealing to the widest demographic, Musak prides itself on its commonality. It caters to the lowest common denominator of easy listening. Instead of trying to spice up our lives, the question we are given to ponder is what particular flavour of bland we prefer! Yes, I understand that Richard Marx is a person too – but one would think that being regulated to the Musak rotation would symbolize the nadir of your musical career.

Normally, I’m a proponent of the concept of voting with your wallet and staying away from places that use Musak as the soundtrack of their shopping experience, but it’s impossible when every corporate entity is drinking the same Kool-Aid – just in different flavours.

Whether it’s at work, at any grocery store, in malls, or even in elevators, Musak follows us like a wandering minstrel of mediocrity. Variety only comes in the style of Musak, not the content. Do I want to listen to an instrumental version of Air Supply’s “All out of Love” or would I rather listen to the live version? Do I take the orchestral version, the synthesizer interpretation, or the pan flute rendering from Zamphir’s Greatest Hits?

And instead of pacifying the masses, Musak can actually backfire. In one particular working environment that I’m familiar with, we’re blessed to have musical accompaniment in our workday. However, the service that provides the music seems to be stuck on a permanent loop. For any given one-month period, you’re treated to the same selection of songs – repeated each and every day. I try, as a general rule, to avoid Cher’s “Believe,” yet, short of taking a sick day, I know I’ll be subjected to it on a daily basis.

I may, one day, have to have a root canal that’s unavoidable, but don’t expect me to enjoy each and every day knowing that this particular musical procedure is on its way.

To top it off, our own brains work against us when it comes to filtering out Musak. Instead of filtering out the sludge and letting the cream rise to our consciousness, our brains seem to get a perverse pleasure out of subjugating the songs we may actually enjoy and only alerting us when the tunes we hate are polluting the air waves.

And I know I’m not alone in having one of these infernal songs insidiously worm its way into your consciousness – sticking in your head on an endless loop, unable to be willed out of your thoughts.

When it comes to music, variety is the spice of life. When I cook, I enjoy using a little bit of that and a little bit of this, depending upon the meal I’m creating and the mood that I’m in. I don’t choose to season each meal with the same amount of vanilla each and every time! So why do we expect the same of our music?

Musak distributors around the world, lend me your ears! If you’re going to infest our airwaves with this noise pollution, at least make an attempt to engage our consciousness. Though I may detest it, I’m willing to put up with a little modern country if that means that some ’70s funk may worm its way onto the playlist. Lay off the Phil Collins drum solos and infuse some steel drums, bouzouki, or even a djeridoo!

What’s the worst that can happen? You may wake us up from the stupor brought about by this non-offensive, vanilla-flavoured, which-shade-of-taupe-do-you-like-better, Musak for the masses. You may, in fact, engage our attention, broaden our minds, and make us more energetic and enthusiastic shoppers and workers. That sounds good to me!

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

More than Just Students of Life

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

By overwhelming our children with homework are we not preventing them from doing the very thing we’re sending them to school to do? Learn.

My son, one month into his sixth-grade year, is slowly going pasty white from lack of exposure to the sun. At this rate, we’ll have to change his name to Quasimodo due to the nice hump that’s forming from being hunched over a desk each and every night.

Like many students, my son is faced with a mountain of homework each and every night. And because it takes so long for him to climb his way to the top, he’s not afforded the opportunity to stop from time to time and simply enjoy the view.

I’m all for giving homework to kids to improve their study habits, work discipline, and to show that with effort comes reward. However, we appear to be placing unfair expectations on our children — accepting something as the norm for them, which the majority of us wouldn’t appreciate in our adult lives.

As we progress through our careers, we strive to find that sweet spot in work/life balance. We look for that elusive zone wherein we don’t just live to work, but we work to live. Although some of us may take our jobs home with us, we’re all working for a day when we can strike that delicate balance between what we have to do to make a living, and what we want to do to live life to its fullest.

So why should we expect any less from our children? More importantly, why are we placing such a premium on the knowledge gleaned from sticking a nose in a book if it comes at the cost of true learning?

Life isn’t just about what you learn in a text book, or what you summarize from a chapter. It’s the sum of all your experiences: intellectual being a component, but no more or less integral than the emotional, social, and physical. In an attempt to ensure success and optimal use of time, we’re sacrificing the best part of our kids’ childhood – the ability just to have fun and be a kid. Throughout my life, I’ve learned as much, if not more, through my interaction with others and through the exploration of my own interests than I have in any lesson-planned activity or curriculum.

My true passions are not the ones that have been lectured to me, but rather the ones that I’ve searched out and discovered on my own. The most rewarding work I’ve done in my life hasn’t been assigned – it’s been assumed as a result of my own interest. But without the time to go out and explore the world and their own interests, our children are in danger of becoming one-dimensional.

Essentially, the purpose of any education isn’t just to memorize trivia or to get good grades. The true value of a good education comes from the fact that we learn how to learn. We learn how to explore the world around us with an open, yet critical eye. We learn how to be open to new experiences and value them based upon their own criteria – not a strict adherence to existing beliefs. We learn to take each new day as an opportunity to better ourselves by allowing the world around us to unfold and reveal itself to us, open for our interpretations.

Yet, in order to experience life at its fullest, we need to have more than just an intellectual knowledge of its concepts. We need to be able to feel and understand. The old adage states that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. But it’s not just the memorization of facts that will prevent us from repeating past transgressions – we need to understand the context behind actions and be able to empathize with people and situations.

If we don’t allow our kids to explore those aspects of their lives, then how can we expect them to truly succeed?

This isn’t to say that all homework is bad. Far from it. Homework teaches kids valuable lessons about the future: the need for preparation, the need for constant self-improvement, and the understanding that there is a world of information out there waiting to be explored. Yet, those lessons shouldn’t be taught at the expense of living their lives. It’s one thing to know how and when a painting was created, but if we don’t understand the emotions and feelings behind its creation, then most of the value is lost.

Let’s apply the concept of striking a work/life balance to our kids. We need to understand that going to school is a job – and with it comes the reward of having some down-time to explore their own personal interests. We expect that right as adults, so why are our expectations different for our children?

We have to stop thinking of down-time as a negative concept. We have to look at play not as a waste of time, but rather an integral part of the learning and aging process. Whether it’s in a group or on their own, our children’s social, physical, and emotional development can only benefit from the opportunities available only during free time.

We need to find that balance between when kids have to be students of life and when they’re actually allowed to be participants in life, because that’s the most valuable lesson they’ll ever learn.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Tax Cuts Won’t Address the “C” Word

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Rampant calls for a reduction in federal taxes on gas may make for good sound bites, but it doesn’t appear that any of our political parties have the teeth to deal with the real problem.

As Finance Minister Ralph Goodale states, any tax reduction at the pumps would be brief at best. Any gains would be lost within hours because the actual issue would continue to go on unchecked – the relatively unfettered ability of the oil companies to set their own prices.

No one wants to bring up the dreaded “C” word when it comes to the inner machinations of Big Oil, but it’s hard for the average taxpayer, who finds themselves paying more and more at the pump, not to believe that there is some form of collusion and price-fixing taking place at a higher level.

If, as the powers-that-be state, there is no collusion in the Canadian gas market, then we need to see transparency in the process for how fuel prices are set. We need to know what market forces go into the rapid fluctuations at the pump, because what we see on our street corners doesn’t necessarily reflect what happens in the market.

What frustrates consumers is that they feel like they’re being held hostage to speculation. Instead of dealing with the realities of the market, we’re driving to work each morning to see a price based on fear, anticipation, and opportunism. We’re paying today’s market price for previously purchased gas that’s already in the tanks. The average consumer is fed up of paying $65 a barrel premiums for fuel made from crude that was purchased at $55.

Generally, one would think that if you purchased a product at one cost, you’d retail it for a little higher price. Then, once your supply ran out and you were forced to purchase more, your new price would reflect what your actual costs were. Instead, the purchase price seems to have no bearing on the actual price at the pumps. For all we know, the gas in the tanks could have been purchased at $40 a barrel, but the second that there’s a hint of a hurricane, we see some opportunists push the $2 a litre threshold, without any real rationale for doing so, other than speculation.

Conversely, the laws of a free-market economy don’t appear to be holding any sway over the gas industry. As a business-owner, one would think that a gas company would entertain the idea of dropping prices or offering premiums to entice people to purchase gas from their institution. Essentially, in any other sector, one would find certain providers willing to swallow some profits in order to gain market share. Considering the howls of anger and the sense of powerlessness that the average consumer has shared, think of the goodwill that a gas company would earn by reducing the price of their product to meet the needs of the community.

If that precipitates a price war, then so be it! That’s what the market’s supposed to be about: freedom to choose, freedom to set your own price, and freedom to compete with others in your industry. Yet, we find the opposite taking place. Instead of companies competing with each other, we find them magically reaching the same conclusion when it comes to setting the price of their product. And it appears the higher the better.

Generally, if it looks like a colluding duck and it walks like a colluding duck, then the conclusions are evident. If that’s not the case, then the government has an obligation to prove that to its populace.

But let’s be honest. We know that no party is going to risk upsetting that giant elephant in the corner known as Big Oil. There is little political wherewithal to confront this powerful lobby group head-on and address the problems at their source.

So instead of curing the disease, we’re railing against the symptoms. Instead of truly dealing with an issue of interest to Canadians, we’re presented with catchy sound bites advocating ineffective tax cuts. It’s political opportunism at its worst at a time when we need true political leadership.

Calls for tax cuts and sniping across the House of Commons only prove to the Canadian public that our elected representatives are only looking out for their own interests and those of their party. By not dealing with the actual problem, they’re showing that the game of politics trumps the realities of life and the needs of their electorate.

Demanding accountability and transparency from Big Oil is not the easy fight, or the safest one – but it’s the battle that we want fought. And the party that takes up the call should find that they’ll be fuelled by voters’ gratitude in the next election.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved