Not In The Target Market

Today I went in one of Canada's brand-new Target stores.  (And just so everyone knows, I'm typing "Target" with the english pronounciation.)  Overall I was underwhelmed.  The stores seem nice enough, but it hardly seemed worth spending six months remodelling.  Really, they just painted everything red and put up new signs.  I also didn't understand why they got rid of all Zeller's old shelving; the new Target-approved fixtures are pretty much the same utilitarian-chic.

Target may have set themselves up for disappointment.  By making a big production of their entry into the Canadian market, people are expecting more than just a Zellers with better organized shelves.  It's bad enough that after month of clearance-level discounts the new Target prices are going to seem pretty high.

One thing's for sure: they aren't expecting men to be a big part of their customer base.  Of course, I'm used to getting short shrift in the clothing department, but Target takes it to new levels.  The men's shoe shelf is limited to a couple of models of dress shoe, running shoes, deck shoes and Chucks.  Zellers gave you whole aisle of second-rate sneakers and loafers.  The clothing department is a little better, with a few - admittedly nice-looking - buttoned shirts to go with the jeans and dumb-humour t-shirt rack that seems to be the only thing in the store that survived the take-over unchanged.

So it wasn't too bad, but it wasn't great.  Not good enough for me to forgive them for screwing over the Zellers employees, anyway.  So now I'm going to start shopping at Wal-M... at Wal-Ma...  No, I can't do it: Sears, here I come.

It's Tough Being The Anti-Paris

I don’t follow celebrity news much.  As a kid I used to watch Entertainment Tonight all the time, but I no longer find it interesting, which I take as a comment on celebrity culture’s intellectual level.  I say all this to point out that once a celebrity story gets to me, I’m assuming that it’s pretty big.  So I have to ask: what does everyone have against Anne Hathaway?

There seems to be a sudden rise in articles talking about how people don’t like her.  This surprised me, because she’s always seemed like a nice person.  Granted, I didn’t see the Oscar telecast where she and James Franco co-hosted; based on people’s reactions to that show, I’m assuming they barbecued kittens on stage or something.  But on talk shows she’s always come across as friendly and humourous without being pretentious.  Whatever negatives you can find against her are hardly worth mentioning when compared with the grand list of things to hate about people in Hollywood.

And yet, people are now turning against her.  Worst of all, the articles I’ve read are all phrased in the form of “I don’t know why I want to hate her.”  That’s a bad sign: once the media starts reporting on itself, you know the story has taken on a life of its own.  Any article that asks why everyone is talking about Purple Giraffes means that we’re going to be hearing about purple giraffes for the next couple of years.  It’s the same process that gets professional celebrities into the public eye.  People keep talking about the Kardashians because people keep talking about the Kardashians. 

So it seems Hathaway is the first person to be the reverse:  If Paris Hilton is famous for being famous, then Anne Hathaway is the first person to be hated for being hated.

Stopping the Streaking

The Miami Heat's 27-game winning streak is over.  Or - as the media likes to call them these days - LeBron James and the Miami Heat.  That seems odd for a team that is known for being packed with several stars; I don't remember it being "Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls."  I wonder if Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh knew they were just signing up to be in James's backing band.

If this game is remembered, people in the future will look back on the footage of it and ask, why do they have "El Heat" and "Los Bulls" on their shirts?  Yes, the most notable game of the season just happened to be on the NBA's ultra-tokeny salute to Latino culture by putting Spanish pronouns in front of the otherwise untranslated team names.  Does this really impress Hispanics?  To put it in perspective, this would be like soccer's Atlético Madrid spending a day referring to themselves as "The Atlético Madrid"

But as I said, the game - and the streak - will likely only be a footnote in basketball history, and thus illustrates the dilemma LeBron James has put himself in.  Yes, going to the star-studded Heat has given him the championship that has cooled the criticism of his lack of team accomplishment.  But in the process, he's also raised the bar tremendously high.  A long winning streak is impressive, but given the talent on this team, it's only the least of our expectations.  By uniting a generation of star players on one team, they've invited comparisons not with other teams in the league, but with the greatest teams ever.  Rather than remember a great winning streak that would contribute to James's legend, it will be remembered negatively, for coming up short of the all-time record.

Japanese Restaurants, Mosques, Doctor's Offices?

So I walk into the doctor’s office, and there’s a big sign in the entryway asking everyone to take off their shoes upon entering.  They do this during the winter months, and I know from the past that people do generally follow this request.  But now it’s near the end of winter - there’s still some snow on the ground, but the temperature is above zero and the ground is mostly dry.  So do I follow the instructions?  It doesn’t get any better when I get inside: there are only a couple of people in the waiting area, and one pair of boots on the big mat where people usually leave their footwear.

So what do I do?  Kindly follow the directions of the handmade bristol board sign that someone obviously put a lot of work into and in the process timidly bend to imposed authority?  Or ignore the directions and stand up for common sense and in the process be one of those arrogant jerks who feels he’s above the rules? 

I went with the former, and took off my shoes.  As I waited, several others came in, and none of them took off their shoes, so I look like an idiot in my socks surrounded by people wearing shoes.  So when society collapses, don’t blame me: I’ve been a martyr for law and order.

If You Can Read This, You're Driving Too Badly

Years ago I remember seeing a new automotive product on TV.  It was a small sort of scrolling message board that you could fit in the back window of a car.  This was around the time that the third brake light was being introduced, so I think it was intended to act as a brake light too.  I'm not sure how you told it what to say; presumably a small keyboard.

It's probably fortunate they didn't catch on, as they'd be just one more distraction in a world where people have enough trouble concentrating on driving.  But I figured it might work if you could pre-program a few possible messages that you could call up when you need them.  I'd go with messages like, "Back off my ass," "Turn off your indicator," "Get off the damn phone," and "For God's sake, someone let me into that lane."

But the rear window message board would really be valuable if you could dictate the message to it.  Whatever you say comes out on the scroll for the driver behind to see.  I thought of this today when I felt the need to ask a driver why he had so much trouble staying in his lane going around turns.  You can't really anticipate the need for a message like that, especially if you want to address it to "Idiot in the white Escalade."

But the tragic flaw in this invention - which we can't overcome with any technology - is that it faces backwards.  Most of the people you want to complain about are in front of you.  Sure, you could pass them then flash the message, but once you pass someone, it's like they become someone else's problem.  You could put the board in your front window, and program it to go backwards so they can read it in their mirror.  But if the person in front of me looks in the mirror, the only thing I'd want to do is congratulate them. 

Can We Trade A Masculine Logo For Your Undefeated Season?

Rumours are swirling that the Miami Dolphins are going to change their logo.  Although the new logo looks nice, it has the stench of marketing on it.  Clearly a PR professional decided to make it more marketable.  It's a real-life Poochie, created without considering that whatever you do, it's still going to be a football team named after playful, universally loved creatures.

They've made the sun look more realistic, not like something off of 1960's wallpaper.  Gone is the comically determined look on the dolphin's face.  But most of all, he's no longer wearing this precious little helmet.  I remember Dennis Miller, during his ten minutes as a Monday Night Football commentator, noting that the dolphin is strangely not wearing a Dolphins helmet.  (See?  Don't say he never contributed anything to football.)  So I would have thought that if they were going to change the logo, it would just be to add that one fractal touch of the dolphin wearing a helmet with a dolphin on it that's wearing a helmet with a dolphin...

Some teams just can't get away from a cartoony logo.  The Pittsburgh Penguins tried to go all serious with their art deco penguin logo of the 90's.  But eventually they saw the light and went back to that cartoon penguin that wears gloves and skates but no other clothes.  Yes, there are teams that benefit from having a childish logo angried-up.  The Toronto Raptors have have been better off de-emphasizing their basketball-playing dinosaur logo (who is also not wearing a Raptors uniform.)  But the dolphin is fun.  And being associated with a team that has some success in its history helps.

Massless Media

Wired has an interesting article about the changes in television ratings.  Well, some of it is interesting.  Like a lot of Wired, it has interesting ideas with a helping of speculation and techno-optimism, along with strange graphic design (Why all the pictures of Alison Brie?  I'm not complaining, just confused.)

Anyway, much of the article revolves around the idea that traditional Nielsen ratings are not very useful in determining the success of TV programs in this age of DVR's, Netflix, and illegal downloading.  That's interesting, but they also bring up a point that I wish more people would learn:  Lots of "popular" TV shows aren't that popular.

Back in the day, when there were three American networks, and before cable channels,  VCR's, DVD's, and the Internet, everyone was watching TV with limited choices, so a popular show had more people watching than not watching.  It was a communal thing: you could assume most of the people around you were watching All in the Family last night just like you.  But now with so many entertainment options, nothing short of the Superbowl even gets to half the audience.  A cable show that gets most of its fame from critical acclaim will only be seen by a tiny percentage of the public. 

There's nothing wrong with this, of course.  I'm a big proponent of individualized entertainment options, so I'm glad to see it.  I just wish everyone would get used to the idea that our TV choices are not as universal as our parents' were.  Stop making references to Breaking Bad and Downton Abbey expecting that we've seen them; we probably haven't.  There isn't much that's universal in entertainment any more, so you'll just have to learn how to talk about politics.