Category Archives: Lifestyle (MC Archive)

Lifestyle-related columns that appeared on Jason Menard’s previous Web site, Menard Communications.

America’s Most Hated? Try the World

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Nov. 8, 2006 — What’s the difference between Kevin Federline and, oh, say Saddam Hussein? Saddam’s got better approval rankings.

Really, can you think of one person that’s so universally reviled as the soon-to-be-former Mr. Britney Spears? Honestly? I mean, even those who can’t stand Britney and her music still have an uncontrollable gag reflex whenever Kevin’s smirk flashes before them.

And it’s not just the we’re-trying-too-hard-to-be-cool social commentators or bloggers that are piling on. Take, for example, this missive in an article appearing on Fox News regarding the fact that the divorce filing was probably timed in a way to reduce the overall length of time that Spears will have to pay support:

“Hence, Nov. 6 would have been Britney’s last chance to get out of paying a third year of alimony settlement to a basically talentless slacker who was a drain on her finances.”

To be charitable, they did say “basically talentless.”

Nixon had his supporters. Jerry Springer has enjoyed a dramatic turnaround thanks to his feel-good appearance on Dancing with the Stars. Hell, there are even people interested in picking up a copy of the Screech sex tape! Underage dalliances haven’t stalled R. Kelly and Rob Lowe’s careers. But K-Fed? He has billed himself as America’s Most Hated, but I think it’s safe to say that he’s arguably the world’s most hated man just for being himself.

Yep, it’s true. The latest poll results are in and even Borat’s more popular than Kevin in Kazakhstan. And that fatwa against Salman Rushdie? Now includes Federline and anyone who has bought his CD.

So why is he so hated? After all, he’s not the first guy to leave his girlfriend and two young children. Nor is he even the first obnoxious white wannabe-rapper to come across our paths (yes Mr. Ice, we still remember you.) But the passionate hatred for everything that is K-Fed is hard to explain.

Obviously, as shallow as it appears, his looks have a lot to do with it. The offensively named wife-beater shirts are never a good fashion statement. Nor is the Fisher Price “My First Facial Hair” scruff he wears. Off-kilter hats and pants so baggy the ass hangs to your ankles are ridiculous. But none of these are exclusive to the Wannabe Artist Formerly Married to Britney. No, there’s something more: it’s the weasely smirk.

You’ve seen it. Every interview, every photo, every image of Kevin features him wearing that half-lidded, tight-lipped smirk. The one that says, “I’m so much better than you.” And what’s worse is that it seems he truly believes it.

While the majority of the world toils away in relative obscurity, here comes this Kriss-Kross reject who has weaseled his way into a world of opportunity that we all know he didn’t deserve. The North American public has a huge threshold for those with little talent making it big — I mean is there any reason why Charlie Sheen makes so much money per episode? And is there anything in his background to set him apart from Federline? No, not really – but the majority of us don’t like to have our faces shoved in it.

That’s what Kevin does. That’s why he’s so vilified. He struts around the Earth, acting like the world owes him everything. And the worst part is that he actually seems to believe his own self-proclaimed hype. He’s a God in his own world and the trappings of success are his divine right.

But more integral to fostering a climate of global hatred is that Federline seems to be truly oblivious to the world around him. When thousands of people downloaded his PapaZao song, he took it as a validation of the world’s appetite for his music – not the “we’re not laughing with you, we’re laughing at you” phenomenon that it actually was.

Negative press, snarky comments? All people simply jealous of Kevin and his undisputable talent. No record company willing to put out his album (thereby forcing his wife to fund the creation of his own label)? Nothing more than The Man trying to hold his talent down.

Alas, the divorce filing officially signifies the beginning of the end for Kevin. Without the desire to appease his still potentially lucrative wife as a bargaining tool, Federline will find that the opportunities that have to date laid themselves at his feet dry up. Maybe there will be a bit part in a film – preferably something that sees him horrifically rendered limb from limb. Of course, the countdown is on for the inevitable Britney/Kevin sex tape to “accidentally” fall into the wrong hands – my money’s on six months (and I’ll take the under). But that’s it. Maybe a stay in the Surreal House, but nothing more.

He’ll fade from our collective memory, and in a few years we’ll all look back and wonder what it was about him that made such an insignificant member of the human race the target for so much hatred and derision.

And we’ll just say: that’s K-Fed.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Marketing God

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Far from being a sign of the Apocalypse, the United Church of Canada’s decision to engage in an aggressive, and surprisingly edgy, marketing campaign is just the Church using one of its traditional strengths – business acumen.

In an attempt to make the Church more appealing for the coveted 30-45-year-old demographic, the United Church will be unveiling a series of ads designed to challenge the traditional view of religious entities. By blowing off the dust and appearing to make the Church seem less stuffy, they’re hoping that they can penetrate a market ripe for exploitation.

Statistics Canada figures show that while 80 per cent of Canadians believe in some sort of higher power, only 19 per cent actually set foot into a place of worship. For many Canadians the only time they set foot in a Church is for weddings and funerals. The United Church’s aggressive $10.5-million campaign is hoping to change that.

And while traditionalists may lament the fact that their beloved Church has fallen prey to the evils of commerce, the truth of the matter is that the Church – with a few noted slip-ups along the way — has always been a savvy judge of people and has shown a willingness to tailor the message to make it more palatable for the masses. After all, what’s the point of having something to say when you’re shouting it to empty pews?

One could take a look at the way Christianity was founded as the perfect example of supply meeting demand. Developed around a Roman society built upon classes and slaves, many people were left feeling oppressed and worthless. As slaves, they had no rights of their own and they were forced to watch as a relatively small group of people enjoyed the spoils of riches – earning lavish lifestyles in the here and now.

For the average slave – or even someone in the working classes – hope was a concept that wasn’t even worth discussing. And, lo and behold, here comes a religion that professes that no matter how challenged you are in this world, if you live a good life and give yourself to God, you’ll enjoy riches and happiness beyond your wildest dreams in the afterlife.

What a great message! And it seems almost custom-tailored to the largest audience that was most willing to listen to it. Be a good person, don’t rise up in anger against oppression, ascribe to stoic faith, and the rewards will be plentiful once you shuffle off this mortal coil.

Whether it’s been through the Protestant Reformation or the two Vatican councils, the Church itself – or significant members of its hierarchy – has shown the willingness to listen to the will of the people and adjust its philosophies accordingly. For some faithful, the changes have been too much, moving away from their static view of the Word of God, while for others there hasn’t been enough change. They feel the Church is still stuck with outdated morals and beliefs that don’t mesh with today’s believer.

And that’s where the balancing act comes in for the clergy. How do you make a text written 2,000 years ago relevant for today’s environment? As the world has shrunk and the depth of our knowledge continues to grow, can we adequately say that concepts that held true then still resonate now?

Society has changed. Far more people are willing to admit that their Atheist or Agnostic. Other religions and belief systems from around the world have found their way to Canadian soil, giving people more pause for thought – and more options for their faith. It’s a competitive environment out there – and the prize is society’s souls.

However, old messaging doesn’t cut it any more. Like watching a commercial made in the 1970s today, the style and advertising tactics look out of date. To appeal to today’s media-savvy generations, you have to embrace the voice that speaks most clearly to them. And the United Church has recognized that with its new campaign.

Chances are there are some faithful who will be offended by the image of two grooms on a wedding cake followed by the words, “anyone object?” And for some the question of “how much fun can sex be before it is a sin?” is one that shouldn’t even be asked. But the problem is, if you’re going to keep preaching to the same choir, eventually you’re going to run out of ears. You need new blood, new passion, and new ideas to keep your organization stimulated. In business, you need to change with the times. You adhere to your key values and core principles, but you bend where needed to meet today’s needs.

For the most part, people aren’t willing to blindly follow any one religion any more. They want to have the opportunity to question their beliefs, to discuss the challenging topics, and to make their decisions with the support of a higher power – not just in blind adherence to a 2,000-year-old edict mired in metaphor and imagery.

The United Church gets that. And this new advertising campaign shows that the Church is more than just a place for spiritual enlightenment – it’s got a pretty savvy business sense to go with it.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

A Formal Look at Dress

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Looking for a way to attract attention at your workplace? Nowadays, the best way to stand apart from the crowd is to wear a suit!

Save for lawyers and a few other choice professions, formal attire has gone the way of the dinosaur. Business casual is the style of choice and most places will even allow jeans on casual Fridays – or, in some locations, all the time.

Working in a business casual environment, my workday wardrobe largely consists of Dockers pants, button-down Oxfords and shirts, the odd polo, and the even odder sweater (odd in terms of frequency of wear – not the fact that they have little bunnies or kitties knitted on them). And while I like to inject my wardrobe with a little colour – a little pink here, a touch of lavender there, a splash of burgundy to round it out – many other guys in my situation seem to prefer to alternate between shades of drab.

In the end, we’re pretty homogenous in our attire. A dress shirt, unbuttoned at the top, casual slacks, and black shoes (because, as Frank Zappa once said, brown shoes don’t make it…). Today’s business casual can be summed up as functional, more-or-less fashionable (at least nothing that will bite us in the Dockers-clad ass 20 years from now), and comfortable.

However, despite the prevalence of business casual, there are still times when we have to dust off the old suit and put it on for the more formal occasions: awards brunches, business dinners, and the like. And the person then returning to their normal work environment is greeted with, “So, you have a job interview today?” or “Wow, you’re all dressed-up today.”

Maybe I’m feeling nostalgic for a time that never truly existed, but I find it sad that the suit is such an anomaly in the business world. I may be odd, but I like wearing a tie. I enjoy getting dressed up once in a while. Far from being stuffy and rigid, I find that sometimes formality helps you feel more professional and, by extension, more important. There’s really nothing wrong with being dapper.

Now, I’m saying that as a 33-year-old man who has grown up in a world – and worked in corporate environments – where business casual has been the norm. My suits have traditionally been reserved for weddings, funerals, job interviews, and the odd business-related function. And when I’ve traded my corporate hat for the old press cap, sometimes the clothing standards have seemed to get even worse.

But I was never forced to wear a suit and tie every day. While the generations before me may have felt that the liberating advent of business casual was an emancipation from the shackles of formal wear, for me there’s still the excitement of dressing up. I enjoy tying my own tie and ensuring that the knot is correct and the length is just right. I appreciate some of the smaller details, occasionally breaking out an antique tie clip and positioning it just so. To me, due to its relative infrequency, dressing up is an event – not an imposition.

That being said, perhaps the novelty would wear off if I was mandated to wear a suit each and every day. The conversations I have with my peers where we revel in the special joy of playing dress-up, adult style, simply wouldn’t exist. Collars that seem so prim and proper would quickly become stiff, constricting, and suffocating. The liberating feeling that formality provides would rapidly be replaced by an overwhelming sense of claustrophobia.

And even if I wanted to dress more formally, I couldn’t realistically do it in my environment. Even on the odd day where I’ve worn a tie to work – usually due to an after-work, media-related engagement – I’ve attracted comments and stares. But yet I still yearn for the days of yore.

I’d love to wear a fedora each and every day: tipping my hat in respect to women passing me on the street; and brushing snow off the brim as I hang it on the suddenly useful hat rack. Wearing an overcoat, a suit, and a tie – a product of a previous generation being reborn in today’s more casual confines.

But that’s the 33-year-old talking. The one who has never been forced to wear a tie. The one who looks back at old photos and imagines a time that may never have existed. And the one who is able to yearn for a periodic return to formality from the comfortable setting that business casual affords.

The good old days are never as good as we remember them. And maybe they’re not as good as we’d like to imagine them to be. But still, sometimes, I wish formality wasn’t just reserved for formal occasions.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Time to Say Get Lost to TV Schedule Makers?

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Remember when there was actually a TV season? The new trend towards flexible scheduling and multi-week delays television fans throughout the nation ready to tell certain producers to get lost. Unfortunately, since we’re not willing to vote with our clicker in all cases, chances are we’ll continue to stew in our own juices.

I’m not better. There are very few shows I consider “must-see,” but I must confess that I’m addicted to Lost. My wife and I watch it religiously, I talk about it with other co-workers similarly afflicted – heck, I even have a friend who has published a book on the subject whose blog I frequent!

But because of my passion for Lost, I’m now counting down the weeks until the show goes on an extended hiatus – to the effect of being off early November and not returning until February! And there’s nothing I’m willing to do about it.

You see, too many shows are willing to play fast and loose with the affections of their viewership. They’ll try to sell the programming break as a benefit for the show’s viewers – enabling them to watch extended stretches of the show free from re-run interruptions.

Forgive me if I’m remembering the halcyon days of my youth in a better light, but I seem to remember that we once had a TV season. There was an extended period of time from October to April where weekly shows regularly played new episodes. Oh sure, there were the odd repeats – and, of course, the Christmas break that allowed claymation versions of your favourite holiday classics to be played for the umpteenth time – but for the most part you could be fairly comfortable knowing that when you sat down to watch your favourite show, it would be a new episode.

Now, it’s hit or miss. In fact, things got so bad last year that someone had the bright idea to build a Web site, http://www.islostarepeat.com, which only displayed one of two words: yes or no. Three weeks new, two weeks repeat, one week on, three weeks off… fans of many shows dealt with the same issues.

New shows, like Prison Break last season, saw the momentum built by strong starts get derailed by an extended hiatus. And then TV execs wonder why shows have trouble penetrating the market.

Very few shows qualify as appointment television for people. They’ll have their favourites, and they’ll enjoy watching others. But, for the most part, people can live with or without TV. And when they grow accustomed to living without your show, it’s very difficult to bring them back.

The odd thing is that, in the case of Lost, they’ve proven themselves to be quite adept at creating new and exciting ways to keep people involved – even during the off-season. The summer’s on-line Lost Experience, while meeting mixed reviews from its participants, enabled zealot-like fans to continue to immerse themselves in their passion, even without new shows. Yet, despite this savvy marketing ploy, they’ve managed to neglect the will of its audience through the implementation of a three-month hiatus.

The last thing anyone working in entertainment wants to do is tick off its target audience. But how are people supposed to feel? In a multi-channel universe where compelling competition is only a click away, one must do everything in one’s power to retain those viewers.

Sure, there are those like me who will return to view Lost in three months – in fact, we’ll probably be eagerly anticipating its return, as I did for the aforementioned Prison Break last season. But if other shows tried this? No problem, I can find something else to do. We’ve become mercenary TV viewers, ready to switch affiliations at the drop of a hat. For that reason, progress may require learning from the past.

Going back to the set TV season may not be a bad idea. That way, serial dramas can have the opportunity to tell their story, people can become involved in the shows, and brand loyalty can be fostered. Increasingly, networks and cable outlets alike have shown a willingness to use cheaper-to-produce reality shows in the summer months, where viewership trends lower.

I love to get Lost – but if the producers continue to play these scheduling games it won’t be long until I’m ready to say, “get lost.” And chances are I’m not alone.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Bully Shows Parents Just Don’t Understand

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

When will people learn? The more you talk about something and threaten to ban it, the more desirable it will be. Unfortunately, experience doesn’t always make us wiser – especially when it comes to knowing how to keep our kids away from things we find unsavoury.

The latest example of this is the release of Rockstar Games’ Bully. This title for the PlayStation 2 enables students to take on the role of Jimmy, a 15-year-old who is starting his first year at a new school.

From there, the experience depends on how you play it. You can choose to befriend the geeks or become one of the bullies. And in typical tongue-in-cheek fashion, the game continues through social interactions. Of course, where people get up in arms is when that social interaction involves wedgies or bats.

And the greatest part of Rockstar Games’ marketing strategy? The fact that they new parents around the world – along with hyper-sensitive pundits – would be up in arms about this new game, shouting its potential for negatively impacting society, railing about its lack of compassion and understanding of a very real problem for today’s children, and essentially turning the volume to 11 to ensure everyone hears how horrible and depraved this new game is.

And, by extent, making certain that every teen worth his or her salt wants to get a copy of the game. Or at least be able to play it at a friends’ house.

It’s brilliant in its simplicity. From so-called Satanic music, to the evils of Gangsta Rap, to underage drinking, kids have reacted to their parents’ consternation and hyperbole in the exact opposite way that the adults intended. Instead of making this product repellant to kids through their actions, parents ended up making these items more desirable. After all, for a teen looking to carve out his or her own identity, what better way than to make a dramatic break from the will of their parents.

After all, parents don’t know anything. They’re old, they’re out of date, and they don’t understand today’s kid! And you know what, when there are still adults out there railing against games like Bully, it’s proof that not only do they not understand today’s kid, but they’ve forgotten the lessons of their youth, and that of countless generations before them.

Rockstar knew this. Rockstar, of the Grand Theft Auto series has had plenty of experience with parental outrage. And when the presence of an unlockable X-rated scene in a recent game was made known, all it did was stoke the fires of interest.

No, parents have yet to understand that the best way to minimize the reach of games – or any other media for that matter – that they find unsavoury is to ignore it completely. Parental outrage is the great validator for youth. Essentially, if your parents are opposed, then you’re probably on the right track.

It’s not until much later that we realize that our parents may have known what they were talking about. And it’s not until we cross the threshold into adulthood that we truly appreciate their wisdom, knowledge, and experience. And that appreciation – along with a dawning sense of regret – is only heightened when we have our own children, and the sins of our youth are revisited upon us by the next generation!

In fact, an even better way to turn your kids off of this type of stimuli is to share in the excitement and offer to participate! After all, what’s less cool in life than what mom and dad are doing?

Yet adults continue to react with outrage, thinking that discourse and common sense will prevail over a teen’s personal habits, when in fact they are dealing with knee-jerk reactions to stimuli. If a parent says one thing, then the opposite must be what’s cool!

So Bully gets released, parents around the world are up in arms, ratings boards slap on teen-only ratings (which, like Parental Advisory stickers become badges of honour, not objects to discourage), and people in the back rooms at Rockstar games laugh and watch all the money come in.

It’s not about right and wrong. It’s about how you handle it. This doesn’t mean abdicating your responsibility as a parent to discuss the tough issues. Nor should you let your child run free like a little hooligan, simply because you don’t want to say no.

But, in the end, going overboard with shock and rage in an attempt to ban a product only backfires. We’ve seen it throughout history – when will parents start to learn?

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved