DJ Got Us Paralyzed With Decision-Fatigue

I’ve started learning to make electronic music. It’s kind of a crazy thing for me to take on because I don’t have a background in music. I was the one playing outside while you were taking piano lessons; it was fun at the time, but now I’m trying to learn music theory from scratch.

But I’m not going to whine about my lack of music fluency; I’m just pointing out something I’ve noticed about music software. I won't bore you with the details, but I'll just tell you that to be a bedroom producer, you'll need a piece of software called a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW.)

There's something weird about the DAW market. See, they can get pretty expensive, so the makers of DAWs usually let you try them for a limited time, or have a lesser, free version. So far, these are the ones I've tried out: 

• Garage Band
• Cakewalk
• Tracktion Waveform 
• Cubase 
• Studio One
• FL Studio 
• Ableton Live
• Reaper
• LMMS
• Bitwig
• Mixcraft
• Acid Pro
• QTractor

And there are many more I haven't tried. A few of the more famous ones: 

• Logic
• Pro Tools
• Ardour
• Reason
• Maschine

What I'm getting at is that there are a lot of options. And out of all those, only LMMS and QTractor are not-for-profit open source projects. The rest are by people trying to make money. 

This isn't modern capitalism! There should be only two options: the crappy one and the expensive one. Or maybe two nearly identical competitors, but people get really worked up arguing which is better. A bunch of these should have merged together. Some of them bought by big companies who lost interest and discontinued them. Statistically, if you have this large a group of tech companies, at least one would have been bought by Yahoo and mismanaged out of business. And either Google or Microsoft should have started their own competitor and run another half-dozen out of the industry. And what about changing focus? Every time there's a new buzzword in tech, one or two should have announced a pivot to the new paradigm, and now they're in cloud computing, cryptocurrencies, or A.I.

But no, somehow this is the one industry where there are dozens of options: synergies and economies of scale be damned. I'm not sure why. One explanation is that it's a labor of love. Music is a business that's very personal, and everyone wants to do it their way. 

Also, the market is at just the right size: there's a fair-sized market available when you consider both the pros and hobbyists. It's enough to keep each of the competitors going, but not enough to attract big companies that will wipe out the competition (save for Apple, which makes Garage Band and Logic, but being exclusive to the Mac, they won't push everyone else out of business.)

There's also a lot of nuances to the industry, where applications have grabbed their own little niche: Pro Tools has established itself as the standard for recording studios, while Ableton Live is the choice for Electronic Music. FL Studio has hip hop, and Logic is the choice of Apple worshippers. Reason is the best for people used to working with traditional electronic music equipment, and Reaper is beloved by the folks who think the best application is the one that can do anything, but in a really complicated way, and thus keep recommending Linux to your grandma.

It's also weird that visual art didn't work out this way. That industry is dominated by Adobe. And yet, you'd think that if any software customers would walk to the beat of their own drum, it would be visual artists. They'd be the ones to ignore the advantages of compatibility to get a product with the right intangibles, or one that's made by a little band of idealists. But no, they've given one giant company a near monopoly. The only ones walking to the beat of their own drum are the ones programming it on a drum machine. Okay, that was pretty corny, and I apologize; I wrote that thing about the artists walking to the beat of their own drum without even meaning to make a joke, and then felt like I had to do something with it, and it all went wrong.

So I don't entirely know why, but this is the one industry where things worked out the way I expected the future to look: Dozens of options, something for everyone.

It Can't Possibly Be Da Shoes

I remember a time in my teens when I was at a friend's house, and his mother arrived home from shopping and announced she had bought him new running shoes. I was amazed: when I bought new shoes, I needed to try on at least six pairs to find one that fit comfortably. The idea of just buying shoes based on nothing but the size and then assuming that's it, the transaction is done? That was mind-blowing.

The point is, there are two types of people when it comes to shoes: picky, and not picky. Okay, I guess "picky" then subdivides into picky for fit and picky for style, so, um, that wasn't as neat as I'd hoped.

Our current retail world is really not good for people like me. For most people and most products, ordering things online is great. Essentially, the plus is that you have incredible choice because the whole world is available to you. But the disadvantage is that you can't inspect anything before buying. Oh, there's the whole lack of human interaction too, if you're into that sort of thing. For most products, that's a reasonable trade off: you don't really need to feel a new iPad before buying. But for me, it's trying on the shoes that I miss.

If you find comfortable shoes easily, this world is great for you: type your size into Amazon and you're done. If you're in that choosy-about-styles subgroup,  it's not perfect, but you might trade the ability to try on shoes for the increased selection. But for me, it really sucks. When it comes to casual shoes, there's just Wal-Mart, Foot Locker, and a few locally-owned stores. Previously, I would have gone to Zellers, Target, Sears, Payless for the sweet spot of cheap but with some quality. But they're all gone in Canada. So I'm stuck with super cheap or super expensive. It's the first time I've come up against this problem. I've bemoaned the lack of bricks and mortar options in modern retail before, but this is the first time I've had the experience where I need to buy something, but I'm not really sure where to get it.

Branding New Cadillac

General Motors has been awarded a formula one team. Michael Andretti had been campaigning for an American F1 team, but now he's stepped aside and the team will be more GM than Andretti. And it's going to be called the Cadillac team, as part of GM's eternal effort to associate the brand with something other than your rich uncle Wally's land yacht.

I'm wondering if anyone is taking bets on how long this team will last — or at least, how long it will have the Cadillac name. I'm thinking the over-under should be about 5 years. In recent history, there have been several examples of companies slapping their name on an F1 team, then changing their mind a few years later. Toyota lasted eight seasons, and Honda only three, and I don't see GM being more patient than them. It won't take long for the suits to ask why they're spending tens of millions to finish fourteenth.

The fact is that Formula One isn't a real great investment. It's not just expensive, but it's also hard to get to the top even if you're willing to spend with the big boys: You also need people with specific skills that aren't always available. Worse, there isn't much of a consolation prize: If you don't make it to the top, the whole world hears your name applied to the irrelevant car getting lapped by the champion.

So Formula One is a weird kind of never-ending investment bubble, where new people buy a team expecting great things, then realize there's not much reward in glory or publicity, and give up. But somehow, there's always more investors ready to take any team off the owner's hands and begin the cycle again.

Having said all this, Formula One has been more competitive this season, with four different teams winning races, so maybe this was the best time to buy into the series. But having said that, the other six teams had a combined total of two podiums in the 24 races, so there's still a big gap between haves and have-nots, even if there are more haves than there used to be. That will be the big challenge: those years in the wilderness without success before any chance at a publicity payoff.

Things The Teenage Me Would Have Found All Too Believable About Life In The Future

There’s a service where a small business can get a name and logo made for them by Artificial Intelligence. Such uses of A.I. in creative industries is quite controversial. And yet, a TV commercial for this service sidesteps the controversy, and instead shows a young proprietor of a small business explaining the concept to her older business partner. The partner exclaims, “A-I-Like-It!”

There's No Nation Like Donation

Universities will often go to alumni looking for donations, which has become a little awkward. I'm sure it made sense in my parents' generation, when tuition was low and education was undertaken in a spirit of enlightenment.

But today's grads look at it differently. Obviously, many are held back by the fact that they're asked for a donation while still paying down student debt. But even if debt isn’t holding them back, university plays a different part in our lives now.

Today, it's more of a business proposition.  The university may not be making a profit on education, but it is charging as much as it can while still remaining a sensible value proposition, much a products on the free market are. Tuition is an investment, that — while expensive — will pay off in the long term. Once you’ve paid a huge amount of money as an expensive long term business investment, You’re less likely to think of that institution as a charity.

It would be like if you bought a car, and it's a really nice car, and you're glad you bought it. But then a year later the car company phones you to ask if you'd care to give them more money. It's like, yes, I like the car, but I paid fair market value for it, so I assumed that was the end of the transaction. It’s not something I think about donating to.

There's lots of things that ask for donations today. I mean, Wikipedia is one biggest ones. It's such an unusual institution to begin with: a widely-used resource that doesn't make a profit or get government grants. So I don’t have any automatic assumptions about giving to it.

In sharp contrast to the University situation, Wikipedia is an institution that you've never given money to through payment for services or through taxes. So its donation requests are unusual: usually charitable giving is purely altruistic, given to a service that others — less-fortunate people — will use. It's not too often that you’re asked to donate for your own sake. The closest parallel is a busker, but you generally don’t choose your buskers. Okay, maybe a better parallel would be a museum with a “recommended donation,” which is kind of what the Wikipedia donation request/guilt-trip is.

(To be clear, I’m not comparing Wikipedia to a University education. I’m aware that the latter is necessarily a lot more expensive than the former)

And now, at this time of the rolling year, many institutions are asking for donations. Not just charities, but also open-source software, and public radio & TV. It’s a reminder of how our world has developed a lot of “free” options that nevertheless need to pay the bills, and non-mainstream media tastes will make it more likely you’ll encounter them. It makes me wonder if this is going to be a viable way of keeping things operating in the future: A labour of love that stays afloat with donations. It’s an odd idea, because we think of donations as going to the less fortunate, in a situation where users of the service are in no position to contribute. But now we’re talking about users paying for their own service, but voluntarily, and hoping that the donations from the wealthy or extra-generous will offset those who can’t or won’t contribute. 

Will it work in the long term? I’m skeptical, though some open-source software has been sustained for a while now with a combination of volunteering and semi-self-interested donations from people and corporations. So maybe it can work.

We All Live In One Of Fifteen Submarines

Subway is really emphasizing new, pre-designed subs, instead of their traditional you-choose-the-toppings approach. You walk in, look at the list of "Subway Series" selections, hold up the line for ten minutes while you read through all the possibilities, then pick a number and order it. And then remember that you still have to choose a size and bread type. The point is, it's different from the way it always has been, where you select every individual thing that goes on your sub. It's the biggest change since they did away with the U-gouge bun slicing.

First up, I'm not really sure why. The ads I've seen are playing up the convenience of just giving a number and letting the sandwich artist do their thing. But I wonder if that was really a big problem for Subway. The choosing of the toppings has never been real time-consuming or mentally-taxing.

The other odd part of this is that the individual Subway restaurants don't seem too keen on the change. The first time I tried ordering numerically, the employee had to turn and look at the menu to know which sub I meant. The second time (at a different location) she rolled her eyes a little when I gave the number — and she was wearing a t-shirt that said, just order by the number. And every time I've gone with one of the designed subs, they nevertheless keep asking what I want on it, no matter how many times I assure them I just want the standard construction. Oh, and apparently, they call them the "recommended" toppings. They didn't like it so much when I called them "standard" like I was ordering a Buick Riviera.

Of course, this isn't totally new, this format of preset subs which I guess you can change if you really insist. That's what the pretenders to the sub throne Firehouse and Jersey Mike's have done. But hey, the number one in the market copying their competitors, throwing away the formula that made them successful in the first place? It has a New Coke stench to me. 

And now that I think about it, people have speculated that New Coke was a cover to switch from cane sugar to the cheaper corn syrup. And I have noticed that one commonality of the numbered subs is that the prices have crept up. So I wonder if this is a bit of corporate sleight-of-hand to hide higher prices. Unfortunately, a lot of companies think that raising the prices and moving up-market and overusing words like “premium” is an easy way to greater profits. But the fact is that it's quite difficult to convince the public that you have become a higher-price-higher-quality option, and not just the same cheap company with higher prices. I don't think the public's perception of Subway meshes with the idea of pricey designer food.

Electric Cars Infinity War

I recently asked what the future of SUV's is. Will be. Whatever. And it turned out to be intertwined with the future of electric cars. That's a bit of a complication, since our electric future isn't clear either.

It's been generally assumed that electric vehicles are the future. And car companies are preparing for it, investing huge sums in the technology and infrastructure. But at the same time, turning our back on internal combustion is the sort of huge revolution that doesn't happen without some turbulence. I figure there's still a few roadblocks to a complete electric takeover.

Range

Electric car costs have come down, and performance has been great, But range is still a problem. It’s improved, but not really enough to change anyone’s attitude. This problem isn’t new: for a long time now, we've been able to build electric cars that will easily have enough range for what the average person drives in a day. But, part of the reason for buying a car/truck/SUV is the freedom it gives you, so even if you rarely drive great distances (say, on vacation) you'll likely be reluctant to buy a vehicle that doesn't give you the option to driver greater distances when you want to.

So electric vehicles are fine, if you only ever drive within an hour of your home. But if you want to use your vehicle for anything more than a day trip, you’re out of luck. And don’t even ask about towing something while driving a long distance. Range has increased over the years, but the problem is that the vacation requirement is another order of magnitude farther than the daily-driving requirement. Even a big increase in range only takes a dent out of the vacation range problem. So we need either a huge range increase, or a huge charging-speed increase, to let people believe they can travel greater distances. Until that changes, there's a whole lot of people who won't consider an electric car.

Charging Infrastructure

The speed of charging has long been a stumbling block for electric vehicles. That's improved a lot too, but there's still the problem of where are we going to charge all these cars? If you live in a house, you can charge at home, but an increasing number of people live in apartments or condos, where charging isn't as easy. Yes, we can set up chargers in parking lots and garages of apartment and condo buildings, but that's a lot of infrastructure that still needs to be built, and it will be built by the landlords who won't (directly) make money off it.

And there has to be a solution for charging away from home. There are a fair number of public charging places, but they're mostly set up by either the car companies or public businesses like malls and stores . Those are both loss-leaders: the car company is swallowing the cost to make electric cars more appealing, or the business is swallowing the cost to attract customers. Either way, it's hard to imagine that scaling-up to being a solution for all of us charging our vehicles. I mean, I can't imagine GM — or Tesla, or whoever ends up on top — building a network of chargers big enough for all the cars in society.

The thing that makes me skeptical is that no one is making any significant money off of charging, and that’s usually what’s needed to get a big change like that happening in our society. Note that it doesn’t have to be switching our gas stations to charging stations. It’s entirely possible that the charging business of the future operates with small charging outlets here and there around a city. But they’ve got to make money off it or no one is going to go to all that trouble and expense to build the infrastructure.

Culture War

It's still relatively low-key, but a few people have targeted electric vehicles as a symbol of everything they hate. I don’t really see that going away. Some of the biggest hot-button issues for conservatives in recent years has been asking people to change behaviour. When you see the fury at being told to put on a mask or learn about slavery, it’s hard to imagine people just accepting that their cars are going to totally change whether they like it or not. 

Right now, that’s not an immediate issue: although buyers have ever-increasing choices for electric cars, there still aren’t any segments of the market where the internal-combustion options are disappearing. When we get to that point, there’ll be a lot more anger, and people taking “never electric” stances.

Big Oil

We're about at that point in the movie where it looks like the heroes will succeed, but you're watching, thinking it can’t be over yet, there's still a half hour left before the credits roll. And then the bad guy that you thought was dead reappears, and says, "You didn't think it would be that easy, did you?" Well, I’m still waiting for that from the oil industry.

Eventually, they've got to make a move against it. I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen much of a campaign against electric vehicles yet. Yes, they're only a small segment of the market so far, but car companies keep positioning themselves to be ready to move to mostly electric production. Surely Big Oil isn't just going to fold up and go home.

When I went looking for stories about the Oil Industry fighting electric vehicles, pretty much all I found was a lot of waffling about how they still make lots of money elsewhere, they'll invest in renewables to make money of the change, they'll sell more stuff at gas station convenience stores to compensate, etc.

Okay, fine, there are ways they can still stay in business and make tidy profits even after electric vehicles take over. But come on people, there's no way large corporations are just going to quietly give up a huge part of their customer base, or retool their entire business, when there's a chance that they can fight to keep things as they are.

They do fund the American Petroleum Institute, which publishes propaganda on their behalf, but most of its actions are just generic government lobbying; not the dirty tricks you'd expect from an industry fighting for trillions.

I've seen the odd story sowing suspicions about electric cars, like the recent one that the extra weight of electric cars will cause aging parking garages to collapse, but that just sounds like desperate casting about for anything that might gain traction. I probably did more damage earlier when I mentioned the problems using electric vehicles for towing.

But then, if they're trying to put together a major campaign to derail electric vehicles, it could be that they are going to get it stuck in the aforementioned culture war. If they can get a significant portion of the population committing to being personally against electric vehicles, adopting that as a part of their identity and world view, it will ensure that fossil fuels can have a foot in the door, preventing the electric domination tipping point for years to come. In that case, their campaigns would target the media of those most likely to buy into the anti-electric position. So it may just be something I haven't personally seen yet.

The McFlurry Is A Lie

I had a weird experience recently when I saw an ad on Facebook looking for McDonald's employees. That's odd to begin with: I'm a bit old for their employee demographic, and in general, Facebook is not a place to go looking for that demographic. But what was really surreal was that this ad came with a game. Click on the link, and you could play a game. What kind of game, you ask? Why, a game of working at McDonald's. It's a drive in Canada to hire 25,000 new employees with a game called Crush the Rush Crew.

In the game, you're looking down at a McDonald's kitchen, as new orders come in at the drive through. You then click/tap on the appropriate employees to have them make an item. And try to keep up. It was a bit dull, since you can only work on the next item in the order queue; you can't strategize by having the burger maker work on a Big Mac for the next order, while the drink maker works on the coffee for the next car in line instead of just twiddling thumbs.

But let's back up here. Depending on your experience with video games, this might seem like a bizarre game idea. But there's actually quite a history with these time management games. If you're my age, you may remember seeing Tapper in the 80's, and not believing that was a real game next to all its contemporaries. So let me shock you again: that genre has kept right on going, and there are now lots of people playing games based on seemingly stressful situations. So the idea of a McDonald's drive through management game is actually the least unexpected part of this scenario. But I would have thought McDonald's wouldn't like the idea of representing their work as a game.

So now I'm trying to wrap my head around this: we've created a genre of game about doing minimum-wage manual labor, and now a company is using one of those games to convince people to do those minimum-wage manual labor jobs. I don't know which surprises me more, that McDonald's embraced the concept to sell people on working for them, or that potential employees haven't just laughed at the concept. I looked at the comments under the Facebook ad expecting lots of vitriol, but there wasn't much. Some people complained about the difficulty of the game, and a few made jokes about how they already played the game in real life. But there was no how-dare-you-make-a-game-of-overworking-your-underpaid-employees. I didn't even see any comments about how unrealistic it was that the game's ice cream machine worked.

It all seems like something from a semi-humorous sci-fi dystopia like Ready Player One or Snow Crash. Though speaking of sci-fi, the idea of gamifying more serious things is not new. Perhaps McDonald's could specifically recruit those who do well in the game, like in The Last Starfighter. Of course, the next level would be if the game were the job; when you play it, your instructions are actually being sent out to some random McDonald’s somewhere in the world, like some kind of banal version of Ender's Game. Actually, that could be good: you do your part running a McDonald’s, and if you do a good enough job, you get a discount on your next purchase. Don’t have enough for a Big Mac Meal? Just take a few minutes to run up a new high score on the Decatur, Georgia drive-through.

Once again, it’s part of our weird future, where work is play, and play is work. I just wish they could find a way to make supermarket self-serve checkouts into a game.

SUV Endgame

A question people sometimes ask in the car world is, what is the SUV endgame?  That is, are we stuck with them forever? Will future generations just have SUV’s, with cars consigned to the history books? Or is the pendulum going to swing back, and we'll look back on the SUV era like the car industry's answer to bell bottoms.

See, the CEO of Citroen said that the days of the SUV are numbered. His reasoning was that in the coming age of electric vehicles, aerodynamics will be important in order to extend range, and that isn't exactly the forte for SUVs. 

I asked the SUV question a few years ago, and the answer I gave was that SUV's would get smaller and sleeker while cars would get taller, and we'd end up with this sort of in-between vehicle. At the time, I used examples like the Toyota C-HR. But since then, Toyota has introduced the Corolla Cross, and announced the C-HR will be discontinued in North America. 

The Corolla Cross is — as the name implies — just a Corolla stretched into an SUV. That's quite common; I hope you’re sitting down for this, but most SUV's these days are just adapted car designs. But usually they don't tell anyone, because they want SUV buyers to have the illusion that they have a rugged and wild off-road vehicle, not just a tall station wagon.

But by putting the name of that car in the name of the SUV, Toyota has shown us a rare moment of honesty from SUV marketing. So you'd think that if the car industry was going to start evolving a middle ground between cars and SUV's, this vehicle would be where it starts. 

And yet, the Corolla Cross is a boxy, stereotypical SUV, just smaller. It looks like the designers went out of their way to convince everyone that it's a big-boy SUV, even if that makes it look a little silly. So it seems that catering to the masculinity reinforcement needs of America overrules any other car priorities, and that doesn't look good for anyone expecting a non-SUV future. 

But there is one reason that Citroen CEO could be right, and electric cars could change the shape of SUV's. It starts with the little-known fact that there are a few reasons why manufacturers like SUV's, besides the obvious fact that consumers like them. One is that they are legally considered off-road vehicles in the United States, which means they are not subject to the same mileage requirements as cars. But to officially qualify for that off-road designation, they have to meet certain regulations, such as ground clearance, and the shape of body work around the wheels. 

But electric cars don't have to worry about mileage regulations. So there's no need to meet those design requirements, and the designers of electric SUV's have greater freedom in shaping the vehicles.  So far, electric SUV's and crossovers have been going away (a little) from the traditional SUV shape. Looking at models like the Jaguar I-Pace and Hyundai Ioniq 5, they're still taller than average cars, but also lower and less boxy than SUV's. So there does appear to be some effort to squeeze more aerodynamics out of them.

Of course, electric SUV's also give designers more freedom because unlike their gas-powered brethren, no one is buying one as an affirmation of masculinity — I assume that's part of the reason that they are a lot less angular and big-looking. They don’t look much like off-road vehicles. And is it just me, or do the Tesla model X and Y even look a bit like <gasp> Minivans.

If we get to the point that electric cars are completely taking over, this may change. In that case, electric cars will have to start appealing to everyone, not just people on the rich and green side of things.  We might even see electric vehicles get more masculine than conventional cars if electric vehicles have to work harder to convince mainstream buyers that they're not emasculating beta-mobiles. Arguably, the Tesla Cybertruck is already an example of this.  But for now, they're showing us a possible way forward into a future of more practical, only-sort-of SUV future.

Mmmall Mmmemoirs

Today I was looking through news headlines and I was surprised to see a Toronto Star headline, "The Rise and Fall of the 90's Muffin." That intrigued me, because it combines two favourites of mine (the 90's and muffins, that is; not so keen on rise-and-falls.)

It turns out to be the story of the MMMuffins chain. If your personal journey through time and space hasn't taken you near that name, I'll tell you that they were a chain of muffin shops, predominantly in malls, in Canada, through the 80's and 90's. If you haven't heard of them, I'm sure you can think of a similar example of a chain that used to be ubiquitous but is now gone.

The chain is, surprisingly, not completely out of business: according to their website, they have precisely two locations left, one in Toronto, one in Montreal. Also strange about that: they have a website. It looks kind of weird to see an older name with "www." & ".com" around it. Just watch:

www.k-tel.com

www.fotomat.com

www.pan-am.com

www.americanmotors.com/gremlin

www.ptl.org

www.coleco.com/cabbagepatch

And that leads to my realization: stores can come and go without you even noticing. They're sort of like TV commercials. Sometimes I'll be watching something recorded a few months ago and I'll catch one of the commercials and be like, wow, where did you go? You were everywhere and then, boom, nothing. And I didn't even notice.

It's hard to believe, but entire store chains can disappear from consciousness, like MMMuffins. I'm pretty sure that at least once in the last twenty years, I asked myself, "hey, what ever happened to that MMMuffins place?" But on the other hand, I didn't even notice The It Store was gone until a few years back when I saw it on a Facebook meme of stores that have disappeared. They used to be a regular mall feature, now they're so forgotten they don't even have a Wikipedia entry.

So let's spare a thought for some of the chains that have disappeared unceremoniously from our malls:

Randy River

Northern Elements/Getaway

Big Steel Man

Bata

Thrifty's

Cotton Ginny

Coconut Joe

Lewiscraft

Leasure World

Direct Film

Smart Set

Put On My Thinking Cap

Normally, I’m a believer in the concept of the salary cap. But I’m now noticing things that are kind of unexpected. Basketball has a salary cap, but teams are thinking more and more in terms of building through big fee agent signings. The most extreme example being when the Knicks traded young superstar Kristaps Porziņģis so they’d have more money to go free agent shopping this summer. In contrast, Baseball has no salary cap, yet dozens of free agents remain unsigned at the start of spring training because there’s little interest from teams.

How did we get here? Mainly it is a result of the NBA’s relatively low maximum on individual salaries. That is, it’s low compared to the total salary cap, and the small number of players on a basketball team, and the very small number of players who make a difference in a superstar-focused sport. It’s a real distortion of the market: if salaries were free (other than the limit of the salary cap) star players would be paid much more than they are now: In the NBA, a superstar is a huge advantage, so teams would be paying large percentages of their cap for one player to build around. That would drive the salaries of star players through the roof, with the result that no team would be able to fit more than one or maybe two under their cap. Super teams with many superstars wouldn’t exist.

The irony is that now things are looking bad for small teams. As others have pointed out, if a player can only make so much money from salary, then that means there’s a big financial advantage to play on a team that’s either in a big city or is already successful, so they’ll have more chances to do endorsements and supplement the salary. So strangely, while the salary cap may help smaller-market-teams compete, artificially keeping the maximum salary low is hurting them.

It’s a very different dynamic than other sports: in baseball and hockey, there’s a huge emphasis on youth. In baseball, young players are a way for small-market teams to compete without breaking the bank, and in hockey, it’s a way to get value out of the cap. You wouldn’t see anything like the Knicks trading a young star to get cap space so they can sign veterans. On the other end of that trade, people were complimenting the Mavericks on getting two great young players to build around. But I’m wondering what good that is. They may end up getting crushed by a hastily-assembled team of veterans.

Meanwhile, baseball had its own strangeness: no one wants to sign free agents. That’s strange in a sport that used to be dominated by rich teams with expensive players. Many people are blaming this on collusion, a conspiracy of the owners agreeing not to sign anyone. That's happened before, so it's hardly tinfoil hat territory.

But I have to disagree. I don't have much faith in the morality of team owners either, I just think there's a simpler explanation. The fact is that with modern statistics, we know that a good-but-not-great player will only add two or three wins for a team. And while it’s true that more wins generally means more fans (and thus more money) a small improvement like that won’t make a big enough difference to be financially worth it. Say you’re a .500 team: signing one of these “good” free agents would mean spending $10 million a year to go from 81-81 to 83-79. There’s no way that makes financial sense. Sure, you could pay for several of these players to improve the team enough to get into the playoffs, but then you’re talking about spending about $50 million a year just to get into the wild card game.

Baseball’s high costs and hard-to-make playoffs have lead to an all-or-nothing approach by the teams, in which they either spend big to make a great team, or emphasize the farm system to slowly groom a winner. That means the market for mid-range free agents is very small. Teams waiting for the youngsters to develop don’t want free agents because they aren’t trying to win at the moment, and once those youngsters are ready, they don’t want many free agents, because they have a team full of young, talented, and inexpensive players. And the few rich teams have spent most of their money on superstars, and have little need for good players. So if you’re a good player at age 30, there simply aren’t many people looking for your services.

So now the business of sports is even stranger than it normally is. Basketball has a salary cap but may be about to grind into a no-parity rut, while Baseball has no salary cap, but is very frugal, but still has no parity. And I continue to think that the NHL may actually have the best system.

Are Trends Electric?

I remember seeing a headline on a magazine cover once that said, “Electric Cars are (Still) Around the Corner.” Of course, that sarcastically got across the idea that electric cars are constantly promised without becoming mainstream. It’s especially meaningful, since I saw that headline in the eighties.

But today that headline is more meaningful because it looks like electric cars finally really are around the corner. So it’s a lesson that just because it seems like some promised revolution is never going to happen, it might still happen one day. So maybe jet packs and space travel are going to happen eventually too.

This walk down Electric Memory Avenue is because I recently saw someone speculate that self-driving cars will become one of those things that will be five-years away for the next forty years. I could certainly believe that: I’ve been skeptical about them, and the over-optimistic predictions in the mainstream media certainly do sound like the predictions of the future that I’ve heard my whole life.

But even skeptics like me have to remember that just like electric cars, it will happen eventually. The irony is that another of those things that have been constantly promised without ever happening is Artificial Intelligence. It was once thought that it was inevitable that computers would be doing all the things humans are capable of in just a few years. But as we learned just how difficult things like language and vision are, the technology wasn’t able to deliver, and the most we ever saw in the real world was the occasional impressive chess computer. I simply got used to hearing an annual prediction that this time next year, we’d be talking to our computers like on Star Trek. Of course, we are now talking to our computers, even if it isn’t quite as smooth as we’d hoped.

What I find interesting is that there is a very different attitude towards self-driving cars. With electric cars, there wasn’t a lot of effort put in by the big companies, and the key innovations ended up coming from outside. Whereas with self-driving technology, there seems to be a rush to avoid being left behind. And that’s the one thing that makes me a little optimistic about the concept: it seems like all these companies are pouring so much time and money into research that they’re going to make it happen out of sheer willpower.

So I wonder why this is different: why didn’t fear of being left behind push car companies to make electric cars work? One reason is because this is less of a car problem and more of a tech problem. The big car companies know that the key innovation could come from some startup no one sees coming, instead of just being a competition of a few corporate behemoths. Also, it used to be that if a car company where caught behind a startup, they could always buy-out the smaller company. But now, between the financial problems of the car industry and the eager investment in technology, it might not be that easy to just buy tech from the innovators.

Also, it’s not just the car companies that want self-driving cars, there’s also the ride-sharing companies. Uber is still losing money, and it’s starting to look like self-driving cars are their only hope. And that’s another thing that isn’t following the previous pattern: Tech companies usually follow one of two trajectories: They lose buckets of money until they get to a scale or structure that makes money (like Amazon) or they discover that their plan was never going to work, however much size and technology they had (like Pets.com).

But Uber’s business plan is clearly in that futile second group, yet investors keep throwing money at it. I’m not sure how this is going to end: Uber has lasted long enough to become an indispensable part of the culture, yet it just can’t survive long-term. It’s like investors love the idea so much that they won’t let anything — not even the rules of economics themselves — prevent it from happening. They’d rather admit that capitalism doesn’t work than have to go back to taxis.

So it’s fitting that Uber’s fate is probably intertwined with self-driving cars: they’re both bad investments that we’re going to make happen, somehow. Part of me admires that tenacity. But mostly, I wish they had gone to the wall for jet packs instead.

I’ve Got The Brains, You’ve Got The Looks

I'm really getting sick of investment commercials. I know, you have to expect this sort of thing at tax time, but now it seems like they're going year round.

I especially hate those Questrade ads where they have highly assertive customers talking back to their brokers. The intended result is that were supposed to feel empowered to rebel against our brokers. But for me, the feeling I get is sympathy for the brokers. Poor guys, having to defend themselves against people who are surprised to find that mutual funds have fees. The fact that they don't lose their temper shows some remarkable restraint. I think i'll invest with them. Where do they sell Strawman Funds?

The Wealth Simple ads have a bunch of people in the target demographic talking about investing. At first, it was kind of refreshing: they talked about money in a relatable, down-to-earth way. They managed to sound like overwhelmed consumers, without sounding like the unrealistically dense idiots normalizing stupidity on most commercials.

But as the campaign has gone on, they’re increasingly being smartass know-it-alls. It wouldn’t be so bad if they were showing people learning about investing and thus getting more confident, but instead they just seem to be getting more arrogant but still clueless.

I mean there’s that one where the woman talks about how you don’t want to invest in big institutions, because everyone knows that large organizations are crumbling dinosaurs going nowhere, really, just trust us, the upstart investment company. Then she says you want to invest in the “disrupters,” a word she surely learned from an online TED Talk. Has she ever thought about how many startups go nowhere? I know millennials hate being characterized as inexperienced and unworldly, but they’re old enough to remember the dot com crash.

And now there’s a new ad, where they tell you how your money can make more money, and that money can make more money, etc. It leaves me depressed that they feel the need to explain compound interest to people. I guess it’s good that they’re trying to clean up after our education system. But mainly I’m suspicious of it. Why are they specifically targeting the least knowledgeable segment of the audience?

Surface Tension

Microsoft has a new, cheaper version of its Surface tablet. The Surface Go is a 10” table for C$529, which puts it close to the cheapest iPads. That seems like a good move. I never understood Microsoft’s early attempts at a tablet. In general, I don’t understand why they feel the need to make tablets, but that’s another issue. The first Surfaces were very high-end, and I wondered how much market there is for tablets that are more expensive than nearly all laptops. On top of that, there’s the question of how many people want a super expensive tablet but haven’t bought them from Apple. It’s like when VW periodically tries making an expensive car; it may well be a nice car, but I’m not buying a luxury vehicle from Volkswagen.

But with the Surface Go, Microsoft seems to have taken a sensible approach to deliver an inexpensive but still powerful tablet, so they apparently think there’s a good market there. That’s interesting, because it’s been about ten years now that computer makers have been fussing around trying to make a new computing format, something that’s portable, affordable, and convenient.

First we had the netbooks. They started off as microscopic laptops with flash memory and custom Linux-based operating systems — essentially they were small versions of today’s Chromebooks. That seemed like an intriguing idea, but people weren’t ready to make such a big break with the past, and soon netbooks had hard drives and Windows, which made them less cheap, portable and usable.

Then tablets took off, and while they’ve been popular, they haven’t been super-profitable for manufacturers. And as a personal observation, they’ve been kind of an awkward proposition: you can get a really cheap tablet which you can use for many things, but it will be far from a replacement for a laptop/desktop. You can use it for e-mail and some web surfing, but many web pages won’t work well on a small screen and underpowered processor. And slightly larger jobs like typing this blog entry won’t be easy.

But there seems to be a new format coalescing: you can get a 9.7” iPad with a keyboard case for about $500, and now Microsoft is aiming at a similar price-point. I find that tablets at this level are much more capable what with their screen and computing power, and an unobtrusive keyboard opens up many more uses, while still keeping the device more portable than a laptop. And sure enough, I’m typing this on one of those iPad/keyboard pseudo laptops.

So I think we’ve finally figured out the formula for a new computing format. I don’t see this replacing anything: there’s still things laptops are better at, smaller tablets are significantly cheaper, and phones are much more portable. But the 9-10” tablet/keyboard is a very useful setup. My apologies to that kid in the “what’s a computer” Apple commercial. You were on to something. But it’s still a computer.

Have You Invested In Ford Lately?

Ford is getting out of the car business. Okay, not completely: they're keeping the Mustang around. But for the most part, they're just gong to sell trucks and SUV's. Chrysler has essentially done the same thing; their only cars are some stagnant Dodge sedans and the Fiat 500.

Even if SUV's are big sellers, I'm still skeptical. As many have been pointing out, the SUV craze may only live as far as low oil prices, and that won't be forever.

This could lead to a bigger version of what happened with the recession in the 2000's, where Americans suddenly wanted fuel efficiency, but American manufacturers had let their small cars fall behind the competition. This time it could be worse, because they wouldn't even have those cars available.

And word is that the biggest reason for this is not Americans' preference for trucks and SUV's, but profitability. SUV's are more expensive, and fewer people base their purchases on price, so there isn't as much pressure to keep the prices down. Thus, manufacturers make a lot on each sale, and the corporate books look good, even if market share suffers.

That's unusual, because market share has traditionally been the big indicator of success in the American car biz. So this move is showing us how much influence Wall Street has on even the biggest companies. But investors don't always have concern for a company's long-term health.

That brings up my main concern when American manufacturers start ignoring the low end of the market: that strategy sets it up so that most people buy their first car from one of the imported brands. In an industry where brand loyalty is a big deal, that sounds like a disastrous strategy, at least in the long-term.

And it gets worse when you combine it with another big trend in the car business: really long loans. It used to be that car loans were in the four year range, but now car makers are happily pushing 84 month financing. If they're going to be relying on more expensive products now, you can expect the long loan trend to accelerate.

But the flip side to this SUV trend is that although they may be replacing cars, SUVs are also becoming more car-like. The Toyota C-HR (SUV) is 1,565 mm tall while the Mazda 3 (car) is 1,455mm tall. So the difference between a car and an SUV is a mere 11 cm (about 4"). Seeing them parked beside each other, they don't look that different. I guess this isn't really that surprising: Although people want SUV's, they still want things cars are better at providing, like efficiency and maneuverability, which is forcing SUV's to get more car-like. So I’m suspecting that a decade or so from now, We’ll be right back to where we’ve always been, driving cars, but we’ll be calling our vehicles "SUVs" instead of "cars."

Fairly Deal Stanton

For a few years there, it really seemed like baseball was fun again. Of course, locally that was because the Blue Jays were finally competitive, but even outside of that, things seemed different. The Royals win in a small market with a hard-working team. The Cubs finally ended their century-long drought, thanks to a team of rising stars. Then the Astros' clever rebuilding finally paid off. Even hateable over-spenders like the Yankees and Dodgers succeeded with likeable young talented players that were easy to root for.

But then with this Giancarlo Stanton trade, it was like bad baseball reasserting itself. If you're not familiar with it, here's what happened:

• New owners Bruce Sherman and Derek Jeter bought a team they couldn't really afford, going deeply in debt
• Through either incompetence, or a desperation to get rid of the previous, widely-hated, owner, the league approved the sale anyway.
• Because of the debt, the new owners couldn't afford the salary of Stanton, the team's star.
• Because his rich contract included a no-trade clause, Stanton could veto any trade destination, and he demanded that the only team he'd go to would be the Yankees.
• Bargaining from a position of extreme weakness in which everyone knew they had to make a trade and it had to be with the Yankees, the Marlins hardly got anything in return.
• rather than try to win over the fans, co-owner/spokesperson Jeter has gone into hiding, not even showing up for the recent winter meetings.

It's hard to imagine one story having a bigger collection of bad memories from the last twenty years. At least without mentioning steroids. Look at what it's done:

• the Yankees are back to being the Evil Empire.
• one of the game's biggest stars has been revealed as a Kevin-Durant-type looking for a shortcut to a championship
• widely-loved superstar Jeter trashed his reputation in one move
• a team that was already having attendance problems has had the third firesale of its brief existence, and the second time they've done that without any success first.

Now the trade is having cascading effects elsewhere. Fellow denizens of the AL east, the Tampa Bay Rays, had been the poster child for competitive small-market teams, but they traded their best player, Evan Longoria. Since he was signed to a team-friendly contact, trading him would seem to be the ultimate sign of giving up for the near future.

I'm worried about where the Jays are going in all this. Just before the Stanton trade, officials from Rogers - the team's owners - admitted they were considering selling the team. Combine these two stories, and one worries that not only are we going back to a late-nineties where our division rivals outspent us year-in, year-out, but we might even be headed down the same road as the Marlins. Thought it's existence, the Jays have always been owned by corporations (first Labatt's, then Rogers.) That's unusual though; traditionally, baseball teams have been owned by individuals. And now Major League Baseball has said that is the only way it will be in the future: they'll only approve individuals as owners, rather than corporations. That has people wondering, how many people in Canada could afford the $1 billion+ cost of the Blue Jays.

So now I'm worried that we're starting the same story, with the sale to someone who can't really afford the team, who'll have to turn it into a low budget, hope-the-prospects-are-good-eventually bottom-dweller. Going into this offseason, there was talk of trading Josh Donaldson to the Cardinals, and I had this whole argument I was going to put into a post about why that would be sending the wrong message, but now people are treating it like a foregone conclusion that unless the team gets off to a tremendous start, he's gone and the rebuilding begins.

It seems to me that the media is seeing things differently than the rest of us. Reporters are a lot more willing to accept the idea that the Jays will be rebuilding. I think it comes down to a subtlety of how the last few years of competitiveness have been perceived. For most of us fans, it wasn't just, "Yay, we're winning!" it was, "Yay, things are back to normal!" We weren't just successful, we felt like a real team again. The idea that we could be relegated back to being a have-not in perpetual rebuilding will be hard to take, even if brief periods of success are guaranteed.

We Built This City On Reasonable Land Prices And Tax Incentives

Amazon.com is looking at adding a second headquarters. That's pretty impressive; so many companies haven't felt the need to leave their own main office. But then, I guess Amazon isn't like most tech companies in that they have a whole lot of world-wide logistics to take care of, and at some point you can't do all that from one campus in one place. So now they want a second headquarters; it didn't work so well for the Roman Empire, but they're going to try anyway.

What's amazing to me is watching various cities jockey for the position, and the tech/urbanist pundits try to handicap the race. All we know is that it will be in the U.S. or Canada. Presumably it will be some distance from their current HQ in Seattle. Good transportation is a must. There's also an assumption that high costs will take New York, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area/Silicon Valley out of the mix too. And since CEO Jeff Bezos is pretty hands-on, it will also have to be a place where he has or is willing to buy a home

It's an interesting question, and reminds us of how geography still has meaning in tech. The media talks about tech as though it all happens in Silicon Valley. And while it is remarkable how concentrated the industry is, the fact is that there are a number of smaller tech centres around the U.S. Amazon's current home in Seattle is one (also home to Microsoft) but there's also Austin, Washington D.C. and Boston, among others.

I've always been a little mystified by how tech companies choose to locate. The usual explanation is that they cluster together in these areas because they have to go where the talent is. But the counter-argument to that is that you're also going where other employers are. Whether you're in an area with lots of potential employees and lots of companies, or few potential employees and few companies hiring them, you'll probably end up with the same quality of employees. And the less-competitive job market has the advantage that less competition won't drive wages up.

But the truth is that there are many other reasons that tech companies huddle together. For instance, venture capitalists work closely with their investments, so they're much more likely to back a company that's local to them.

But we're not talking about a startup here, we're talking about a company that already has a reputation and a ton of money. So I figure they have a lot more freedom to go anywhere they want. They could probably go somewhere that doesn't normally have a big supply of tech employees, and just assume that their presence will draw applicants to the new place. Even the cultural accoutrements of tech employees will probably follow. That could be a boon for cities that are stuck in a rut, perhaps held back by a staid old populace unwilling to try new things. But add a bunch of young cosmopolitan folks with money to spend and you'll soon have all the ethnic restaurants and art installations you want. Having grown up in a culturally conservative city, I'd always fantasized that a tech company relocated there and disrupted the culture. Well that could be about to happen.

But that brings up the big disadvantage of winning the Amazon sweepstakes. You don't just get the good parts of Silicon Valley, like jobs and sushi. You'll get the bad parts too, like gentrification. Dropping a bunch of well-paid employees into a city will take supply and demand in unpleasant directions. As the San Francisco Bay Area found, just because you have a really advanced economy: 1. the people who already lived there aren't going anywhere, and 2. You're going to need people who do less glamorous jobs, who don't make a lot of money. So whoever wins the new headquarters won't fix all their problems, they'll just get lots of exciting new problems to work on.

Train In Vain

Do you remember Consumers Distributing? If you're too young, or too non-Canadian, I'll explain that it was a catalog-based retailer. Their "stores" were little more than small warehouses with a few desks out front where you could order items. Then a sales person would go back into the warehouse and find they were out of your item and they'd have to order it.

Anyway, Consumers went under some time in the early 90's, and their stores became so many bingo halls. But I always thought that was such unfortunate timing. After all, who would be better positioned to take advantage of e-commerce, than a company who already had an ordering system and network of warehouses? If they could have just survived that early-nineties recession, they could have beat everyone to the market and ensured years of prosperity, instead of ending up as a retail footnote.

I'm reminded of how cruel business timing can be when I look at this:

This is a plaza near where I live. As you can see, it's seen better days. A number of businesses have come and gone, and it's mostly closed now. Its parking lot is small and hard to get into, it's off to the side of other shopping areas, and it's not the most prosperous neighbourhood to begin with.

The sad part is what you can see in the front of it:

It's a half-finished light rail station. Yes, this sad-sack plaza has suddenly become prime real estate, because it's right outside one of the stops on KW's new transit system. We've recently seen several other development projects started or announced near other stations, as they transform eyesores and vacant lots into hot properties.

So just think, if any of those businesses could have just hung on for a few more years, they'd be looking great right now, with a big source of foot traffic dropped right in front of them  Instead, it will fall to new businesses to take advantage. Someday soon, the closed stores will be filled by over-priced coffee shops, whose patrons will be unaware of the ghosts of short-lived nail salons around them.

Sports Fans Losing Their Shirts

It was recently announced that the Edmonton Oilers are going to be wearing Orange jerseys for the forseeable future. If you're not familiar with the situation, they've traditionally had blue shirts with orange shoulders and trim. But in recent years, they've introduced a third jersey with inverted colours: Orange with blue shoulders. In this new era with young superstar Connor McDavid as their leader, those orange unis have become more popular, and now they've announced that they will be the main choice for the playoffs, as well as next year, when the NHL will not be having any third jerseys.

It's a nice arrangement, since the Oilers have the awkward situation of having a proud history, but one that revolves around a very specific generation of players. This way, they can honour their history while drawing a clear dilineation between...wait, no third jerseys next year? But, they are what modern sports is all about: gratuitous changes that squeeze more income from fans.

It turns out that this is because Adidas is taking over as the league's uniform supplier, and to simplify things, they are going to drop back to the old-fashioned arrangement of just home and away jerseys, at least for this one year. Again, this is refreshingly unlike modern sports. I'm sick of people introducing changes at the worst posible time. It's like, we've got this new kind of camera, let's use it for the first time at the Superbowl. Or, here's this new soccer ball, shall we test it out in the Armenian third division? No, let's start using it in the World Cup.

I'm glad one aspect of pro sports is changing, because other areas are getting even more pro-sportsy. The Oakland Raiders are moving to Las Vegas. Of course, sports teams moving for financial gain is hardly new, not even for the Raiders themselves, who will be going into gratuitous move number three. But this one seems more galling. Let's count the ways:

• Local governments will be paying $750 million for the Raiders' new stadium in Las Vegas.
• Local governments in Oakland were willing to pitch in $200 million for a new stadium. That may be much less, but when you include the fee the league charges to move teams, it would have been cheaper to stay in Oakland
• The new Vegas Golden Knights of the NHL are also about to start. As a hockey team in the desert, they face a challenge, and were hoping that being the only pro team in town would help. But so much for that. Oh, and they're going to be playing in a new arena that was built without public money.
• Not only is Las Vegas getting two teams at once, Oakland is losing two teams at once. The Golden State Warriors of the NBA are also leaving, though only across the bay.
• Oakland will still have one professional team left: baseball's Athletics. But they're looking for a new stadium, and might also move (to Montreal, <crosses fingers>). And at least part of the reason is that Oakland Coloseum is not a great place to play is because of the massive section of football-only seats in centre field, which were built to lure the Raiders back to Oakland in the 1990's
• Those seats cost $200 million dollars. They were paid for by the city, which still haven't finished paying for it.
• The new Raiders' stadium, along with the new stadium for the relocated Los Angeles Rams and Los Angeles Chargers, will be run by a company owned by Dallas Cowboys' owner Jerry Jones
• They haven't even started on the stadium in Las Vegas yet, so it won't be ready for at least three more seasons. The biggest stadium in Las Vegas is tiny by NFL standards, so the Raiders are planning on staying in Oakland - the city that now hates them - for at least two of those seasons.

Meanwhile, the Atlanta Braves and Falcons will be starting their upcoming seasons in new stadiums, despite their previous homes being barely old enough to vote. In fact, current Braves pitcher Bartolo Colon began his career one week after his team's old home Turner Field hosted it's first Major League game. And the Falcons' stadium will be named for Mercedes-Benz, despite their also having the naming rights for the nearby Superdome in New Orleans.

What's really interesting is that the NHL's Arizona Coyotes are looking for a new home. Of course, the NHL went to the wall keeping the team in Phoenix, and I assumedthat a big part of the reason was the arena. It had been paid for by the Phoenix suburb of Glendale, which was slowly paying off the debt with a tax on tickets. If the Coyotes - as the arena's only tenants - were to leave, the city would be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars and no way to pay it off. While I'm sure the NHL doesn't really care about the finances of an Arizona suburb, a debacle like that would make it hard for the next team that has to go begging to the local municipality. But apparently I was wrong; the NHL, like all sports leagues, is so intent on screwing everyone, that they can't even strategically not screw people when it makes sense. Except on the uniforms.

Who Sells Out

I'm not really comfortable when the music business mixes with advertising. I lived through the alternative music era of the early nineties, when any musician not busking for the money to eat was considered a sell-out. Of course, the pendulum swung back the other way, and by the end of the decade, people were congratulating Moby for licensing all 18 tracks from his album Play. The pendulum hasn't swung back to anti-commercialism again, so we're still in an era when there's little consequence for musicians selling their soul to the ad biz. But even if fans and journalists don't punish artists, there are still some things to consider.

Level 1

Selling your song

This is when you let someone use your song in an ad. This seems like a harmless thing to do, and in the modern world, it's probably the best way to get your song heard. The problem is that the ad will now be by far the number one way people hear your song. So it's no longer your song, it's the song from the Nissan commercial.

This used to be considered selling out, but it's now acceptable to anyone not hanging on to their 90's flannel. The argument in favour of selling your song for commercial use is that you have the song, what harm does it do if you let someone else use it? My response is to ask, how sure are you that selling this song won't influence how you write your next song? Which brings us to...

Level 1b

Selling your next song

X Ambassadors really cashed in when they had the luck to write a song called "Renegades" just as Jeep was introducing a new SUV called the Renegade. I wonder how many struggling bands have started reading the car mags to find out what models are coming soon.

This is also the level Fitz and the Tantrums are going to for their song, "HandClap," which is quickly infecting stadium playlists everywhere. I mean, it's great that it's displacing DJ Casper's "Cha Cha Slide" who's "Everybody Clap Your Hands" soundbite has been a crutch for hack stadium DJ's for years.

Level 2

Letting them change the lyrics

At this point you're really tarnishing your song's memory, since you're making the song literally about the product. This means that people will forever hear the commercial version in their heads when they think of your song. This still happens to me for "You Are The Sunshine of My Life" (Minute Maid) and "I Can't Help Myself" (Duncan Hines) even decades after those ads were on the air. My point is, you only resort to this when you are truly done with the song, and never expect that you or anyone else will use it for its original intention ever again.

Level 3

Changing the lyrics to something completely different

A few years ago I heard them play "Your Love" at a baseball game. It's one of those songs you know you've heard, but you can't place it, so I had to look it up on to identify it. It's by The Outfield, which I discovered is a British band, even though they're named after a baseball term. That's weirdness I can appreciate.

But in the Glee aftermath you're allowed to like eighties music as long as you pretend you're only liking it ironically, so the song has a huge value to advertisers. That's how "Your Love" becomes a baseball anthem, and how advertisers get interested in putting it into a commercial, thus looking hip and appealing to old people at the same time. But by allowing an ad to re-write the song to tell the story of a loser with a wrinkled shirt to sell Bounce sheets, the song becomes a punchline.

At this point, you're not merely damaging the song, you're turning it into a joke. I can talk about "Sunshine of My Life," and you may remember it as a great song, as long as you don't try to hum along with Stevie Wonder and find yourself singing about orange juice. But once your song is a punchline, people can't even remember the existence of the song and take it seriously. To put it another way, changing the lyrics is like killing the song, this is like killing the song and then erasing all evidence it ever existed.