The Big Duck

Here's Sara at the Big Duck, which is on Suffolk County land on Route 24. The Big Duck is right near the entrance to Sears-Bellows County Park, which is where we spent the long weekend camping.

Few people realize that although this thing looks like just a silly giant duck, it has historical significance in the realm of architecture. "Big Duck Architecture" refers to representational design. The Big Duck used to house a small store where people could buy ducks, eggs, etc. So when you visit the Lipstick Building in midtown Manhattan, know that the architectural movement that gave rise to it started with the Big Duck.

Breakage on MTA MetroCards

Sent a letter to Newsday in response to this story (link likely to die after today):

Submitted for Publication

It’s called “breakage” and it’s the term used to refer to unredeemed value when any business plan involving a stored value card is constructed. Stored value cards can be gift certificates, pre-paid phone cards, pre-paid debit cards or anything that holds a monetary value, including Metrocards.

In putting together any business plan involving stored value cards, making assumptions regarding breakage is a critical component of the plan. Taking liabilities off the books when cards expire frees up revenue and adds dollars to the bottom line for any marketer employing a stored value instrument. That’s why it took me by surprise to see New York City Transit Spokesman Charles Seaton quoted in your story as saying the issue of forfeited fares is “really no gain to the transit authority because it doesn’t affect the amount of service we put out.” This quote implies that the breakage was somewhat of a pleasant surprise for the MTA. If the MTA engaged in responsible business planning, which I’ll assume they did, at least a percentage of this breakage would have been accounted for in the plan.

Can one blame the MTA for its low-key approach to the redemption policy? Publicizing it simply takes money from their bottom line. And if the MTA planned the Metrocard program responsibly, they likely had a fairly good idea of how much money the breakage would represent on their books.

Sincerely, Tom Hespos [personal info deleted from original letter]

Let's see if they print it.

Editorial Guidelines Nothing New

The blogging community is up in arms regarding an article in AdAge [registration required] dealing with BP editorial guidelines for print publications. I won't defend BP, but just to add my $0.02 to the conversation, these types of guidelines are in use across the industry and are nothing new. At my first agency job, I had to implement them and deal with them for a particular advertiser, and that was more than 10 years ago. As I understand it, the guidelines had been in effect for several years prior. This is nothing new.

The new twist, however, is that the fact that they exist is now visible to the general public. Admittedly, in my first agency gig, I was taken aback by the existence of editorial guidelines in the first place. Coming from a journalism background, I perceived them as an attempt to influence editorial content. My supervisor told me that this wasn't the case, as we were simply asking for the opportunity to pull the ad away from content that would negatively affect the ad's perception. But I never really bought that. If a publication knows that any editorial coverage that negatively impacts an advertising client will almost certainly result in the ad being pulled, that can certainly be an influence on what is printed.

Again, I'm not defending BP. But a relatively common advertising practice just happens to be coming to light in the context of a completely different political landscape than the one that existed when guidelines like these became a standard industry practice.

Nor am I defending the practice itself. I just wanted to point out that it's nothing new. What's new is that now it's coming to light.

Revenge of the Sith - Thumbs Up

Went to see Revenge of the Sith last night out on the Island. It's a wonderful movie, of course, chock full of explosions, lightsabers and special effects galore. Some comments you probably won't find on other blogs... (Warning: Possible spoilers below the fold!) First of all, let me say that Padme Amidala is absolutely beautiful. Not Jenna Jameson sex fantasy beautiful, but classicly beautiful, as in what you think Arthur's Guenever must have looked like. There is, however, one scene that makes it apparent that there is such a thing as bad hair days in Lucas' Star Wars universe. You'll know the scene when you see it and think that Portman should go to Duane Reade and pick up a bottle of Frizz-Ease or something like that. Leia certainly had her bad hair in the original trilogy - she probably got it from her mom.

Jimmy Smits as Senator Bail Organa didn't have a huge part in Episode II, but he has a bigger role toward the end of Episode III. And he doesn't pull it off. You want to call him Senator Victor Siffuentes when you see him talking to Yoda and Obi-Wan about what should be done with the infant twins Luke and Leia.

Speaking of actors who didn't fit their roles, I thought Samuel L. Jackson did a great job in Episode II as Mace Windu, but somehow turned into Jules from Pulp Fiction in Episode III. I'm surprised he didn't say "I don't trust the muthafucka..." when discussing Anakin's role as Palpatine's representative on the Jedi council with Obi-Wan. I think he was trying to be too much of a badass.

I was a little disappointed in how quickly Count Dooku was dispensed with in Episode III. The dashing Sith badass who took on Obi-Wan, Anakin and Yoda in Episode II suddenly turns into a wussy when he is handily defeated by Anakin in Episode III. Seemed like Lucas was quick to usher him out the door early on.

Lightsabers are still cool. And there's tons of lightsaber action in Episode III - I venture to say more laser swordfights than any other episode. General Grievous comes after Obi-Wan with six of the damned things. More lightsabers means more flying limbs and decapitation - while Obi-Wan managed to hang on to all of his extremities this time around, Dooku lost both hands and his head, Anakin lost his remaining arm and both legs, Mace Windu lost both hands and countless Jedi scrubs lost various limbs in lightsaber battles throughout the movie. No gore, though - that might have threatened the PG-13 rating.

Thankfully, Jar Jar had no lines this time, which is, of course, just fine.

There's been a lot of talk about the movie paralleling the whole "War on Terror" thing. At risk of politicizing the movie, Darth Vader reminded me of some of my neocon friends - Not 100% evil, but acting before thinking (jumping to conclusions) and operating with some bad information. There's the infamous "with me or against me" line, which immediately made me think of Bush in the War on Terror. Padme delivers a line about freedom dying to a round of applause, which reminded me of the progressives. Then there's this evil emperor who twists the values of the Republic through a combination of tactics including controlling information, controlling the senate and having emergency powers during a crisis. Sound like anyone you know?

Speaking of Palpatine, I noticed that all the Sith Lords seem to have cool names - Darth Sidious sounds like it's based on the word "insidious" which certainly has evil connotations. "Darth Maul" makes sense - a maul is a medieval war hammer, plus a verb meaning "to beat" or "to mangle." "Darth Tyrannus" is pretty self-explanatory. But this begs the question - What the hell is a "Vader?" And is it me, or did Palpatine simply make that one up on the spot? One minute Anakin is kneeling before him and the next second, Palpatine is handing him a new name in the same fashion as Bluto Blutarsky handing out pledge names in the Delta Tau Chi frat house basement. Palpatine dubs him Vader with the same enhusiasm as if he had said "Anakin, your Delta Tau Chi name is...Darth Flounder!"

All in all, though, the movie was a blast. It tied up most of the loose ends and delivered something pretty close to continuous action and adventure. I'd go see it again, although next time I won't spend the $4.80 for the bladder-buster size Diet Pepsi in the Obi-Wan Kenobi commemorative cup.