Today's Big Idea: Music and Messaging

Today I was on a company's website seeing what they do and they wrote about how they placed PSAs at concerts and suddenly a spark went off in my brain.

The last big show I went to was the U2 360 tour (I'm old; that's my teenage music). They had GIANT screens, as I'm sure most performers do these days. U2 tries to be interesting with their giant screens and do cool stuff, like call the International Space Station in the middle of a concert to kick off a song. They have art-y videos during and between songs, and when they're taking a break; before the encore. 

I was thinking about other types of artists (although I think U2 is perfect for this as well; although I can admit the demographic is aging a big), namely country artists, and what kind of messaging the screens could do before and during the show.

My big idea was this:

Have the band or artist solicit videos from fans about a month before the concert (or the tour). Before each concert, show videos from fans across the county talking about a particular subject - what people are doing to make a difference in their town, how they feel about the U.S., a soldier from their town/family that's currently serving abroad. Give the crowd a shot of heartwarming feeling before the main act comes out so that they will be associated with that feeling and also make sure to tie in the national sense of it, that people are submitting from every part of the country, that the fanbase extends to all sides and knits it all together. Create a feeling of community; make the fans think "We are this land, and this land is my land." 

Of course, a more "today" idea would be to create a special hashtag for each concert venue and have people create vines as they're getting ready, driving to the show, waiting in line, getting through the gates; and then have someone (or a team of someones) curating those videos and posting them in a queue to be played on the big screen before the concert and during the show. Maybe mix and match from different concerts; hold on to especially good ones from the tour and rebroadcast them in other cities, mixing in the local pride with laughs or joy at someone else's celebration.

So basically the original idea was to have fans create PSAs for something local to them or national and show them before the concert. It would be a difficult line to walk: how do you pick causes that are heartwarming but not heartbreaking? Like, with the soldiers: will someone in the audience be torn up because they'll be reminded of a loved one across the world or, worse yet, killed in action? 

But how do you make it real without it being schmaltzy, all puppies and kittens (which makes me think: cat videos! What a crazy and hilarious oddity to show before your concert!)(And speaking of oddities, wouldn't it be all the more awesome if your band was Gwar or something like that, so that the disconnect was even deeper (but probably not off-putting to fans, who probably love the videos, too - or have girlfriends who do).

Anyway; that was my idea.

Frist RVs

Dear former Senator Bill Frist,

Isn't your family in the hospital business? Don't you own a hospital, or a chain of them? Didn't your hospital get hit with one of the largest fines in American history, and yet not blink an eye?

So maybe you've got some resources. Maybe there's some money that could be put to good use. Right?

Did you see "60 Minutes" last week? Did you see the story about the two women driving an RV through Appalachia doling out medical care? Doesn't Appalachia run through part of your state? Do you think maybe you could raise a million dollars to help out this effort (even if you don't donate the majority of the money yourself, you could spearhead the effort and use your name to help publicize it)?

This is the kind of healthcare that Republicans proposed instead of Obamacare. "Oh, it'll be taken care of by charity." Well, if you watch the program, you'll see it's not working very well. 

So maybe you could help it work better. Maybe you could reach out to wealthy donors in Tennessee and say "Guess what? I don't want money for politics! I want money to help Tennessee citizens have access to healthcare!" 

I don't care how you feel about Obamacare. If people are in need, they're in need. And if they're in your state, a state you care so much about you ran for Congress to represent it, I think you could do something for it. Even if it's just one RV. Or one RV and two nurses. Or two RVs and four nurses.

Dare to dream. Crowdsource it on the Internet. Put it on Indie-a-go-go and Kickstarter. Find out whether people will rally behind this. Try to make a difference. 

I think you can. Go ahead, do it.

OFA Website

Organizing for America should have daily action links based on Daily Show and Colbert Report segments the night before. Often I get riled up and pissed off about the things they say about the government, but the next day there's a new show, a new outrage and it's all forgotten. 

So what could be done to turn this outrage into action? Well, I think if Organizing for America wants to really harness the young people in this country and show them that people power does work, then I think they ought to connect their interests to engaging in the political process.

I think the best thing - okay, the thing I'd prefer to happen - would be to create printable postcards and letters to send to Congress OR - even better - to constituents in other parts of the country. Buy the Republican election rolls and mail those people letters. 

==

But here's something close to home that OFA could do to demonstrate people power (and their own power). Create a movement to "flood the zone" of South Side Chicago where gun murders happen in an effort to cut down on those murders. Put people in and on the streets. Open a youth center and bring in people to tutor and mentor kids. Organize sports teams and have games. The point being: if you want to be taken seriously, demonstrate what you can do in your backyard. It's about organizing; it's about motivation; it's about societal change. So let's see what you've got.

Adelson and the Illegals

Sounds like a good name for a band, doesn't it?

My idea is this: if conservatives really want to challenge the President on illegals, someone should put up the money to fly them out of the country.

So, for instance, Sheldon Adelson could put up ten million or so to charter private flights to Mexico to take illegals out of the country. Someone could research the issue (numbers currently housed in detention centers, % that are Mexican, how many flights would be needed or how detainees could be consolidated for those flights.

If conservatives want to challenge the status quo, they need to be creative about it. Think outside the box. Put up some assets.

If they don't want to do it this way, maybe an energizing senator like Ted Cruz can start a crowd sourcing effort to pay for them. As a way to show the President that people are serious about this issue and willing to put up their own money. (Cruz could set it up so those contributions could be written off of that person's taxes (since they are funding government)).

Put your money where your mouth is, essentially.

Saudi Arabia, Israel & Palestine

The other day I was watching a report on Syrian refugees and they talked about how Lebanon was prejudiced against refugees after their experience with Palestinian refugees, who came in the hundreds of thousands and put a strain on the country. (I learned last night that they never left and the refugee camps still exist, some forty years later.)

Now, I've realized that maybe this is foolish thinking, in that I think of Saudi Arabia as this country where everyone's a millionaire, rather than it having classes like any country, but I was thinking that if the supporters of Palestine and the Palestinian people wanted to help them - in a real, human way - they could use their wealth to do it.

Here's the first idea: Israel is building settlements in the West Bank, continually encroaching on Palestinian lands (if not already taking them over by fiat). Rich Saudis could start buying properties in Israel proper and renting, leasing or giving them to Palestinians. If regular Palestinians were seeded throughout Israel (or throughout Jerusalem, lets say), there might be more growth as people had them as neighbors instead of some "Other" that lived behind a giant wall where death came from.

So my first idea is this: buy up all kinds of homes and apartments in Jerusalem and start giving them to Palestinians who work in Jerusalem (or outside the wall) and strive to have a better life. If this improves their economic condition, they can then contribute to the economic state of other Palestinians within the Territories and possibly help the state as a whole.

Now, I imagined a roadblock. What if the Israelis don't want Arabs (regardless of nationality) buying up real estate, or would be suspicious of such? Well, here's a lesson from the pros*: form a shell company! Get some lawyer in Panama to set up a company with "Holdings" in the name and buy all the properties from there. The lawyer can cite confidentiality or he can be the chairman of the board or CEO and not need to reveal his investors and/or donors. Simple subterfuge. You might also go through China (because it might be more plausible in this day and age).

Here's another idea - that would be kind of amusing, in a way. What if you bought up the settlement buildings and gave them to Palestinians? I don't know if the settlements are government-owned or privately-owned, but if they can be bought, I think it would be a great move to buy an entire building and then populate it with Palestinians, undercutting the whole purpose of the project. That would be kind of cool and have an edge of satiric wit to it.

To go back to the genesis of the story, I think it also would be a great idea to build permanent housing in Lebanon for the Palestinian refugees who've been living there since the 60s and 70s. I understand from the news that "camps" still exist, but they weren't described or shown, so I don't know if they are still camp-like structures (fabric) or if they have become shantytowns like in urban Africa, or what.

If wealthy donors were to fund the building of apartment buildings in Lebanon, it would serve three purposes: 1) employment and wages for people - hopefully native Lebanese, therefore not causing more conflict with the refugees; 2) possibly reducing rents by expanding the market for living spaces (something that has become an issue with the recent influx of Syrian refugees); and 3) give the Palestinians real housing, giving them a chance to move ahead in the world (and possibly leave Lebanon).

Of course, building a permanent building for a refugee population is fraught with problems, as well; natives probably won't be happy with something so permanent and that it's being built for "outsiders." (I would argue that if they've been there for 30-40 years, they're pretty much locals by now; plus, giving them their own housing takes them out of housing Lebanese people could rent.) Still, I think it would be a worthwhile project.

Then there is the issue of Palestine itself. I get caught up in the conflict that exists there: the people seem under an oppressive hand from the Israelis, but the constant threat of missiles and other terrorism seem to warrant tight control. So how do you address it?

For me, the plan always has to be growth. People who are employed and moving up the economic ladder and see a future are people who are not throwing bombs and rocks and giving away their lives. (On the other hand, the American Somalis who were too comfortable and not spiritually challenged enough, threw it away to have something to fight for - or against.) So how do you create stability and upwardly mobile lifestyles in Palestine?

My first two things would be power (electricity) and food. I would want to install solar panels all around and maybe set up some coastal generators that capture wave energy. Next I would want to expand the farming sector; figure out how to grow in smaller spaces, indoors, on rooftops, all year long. Start growing specialty products and special organic blends.

The biggest hindrance with any kind of commerce is the restriction on travel and goods. How are you going to get things out? How are you going to get things in? There has to be an incredible level of trust, either by letting the Israelis have some measure of control or by finding a neutral party beyond reproach (and I don't know if that's even possible). Still, I think establishing some kind of regular commercial channel - and maybe it should be into/out of Egypt! - is extremely important if Palestine is going to flourish.

The other thing that could be a real boon to Palestine - in terms of its standing in the world and the help that it gets from outside - would be to bring people there. I would like to go to Palestine, to see how it really is and see if my ideas make any sense. I'd like to see how much land there is and what kind of land it is; I'd like to see what the electricity situation is and what can be done to improve it; I'd like to see how the people live and whether there is a large middle class and I'm mistaken in my view of the place.

My thing is growth, always growth. What can be encouraged, rather than discouraged. What can be built instead of destroyed. How can we make people happy instead of making people angry? How can we short-circuit the cycle of revenge and turn it into something else?

*although maybe this is something that only works in spy novels

Creating Jobs

I think about this all the time. Who could spend to create jobs? Jobs would create spending, spending would create activity, activity would create more jobs, the economy would come back to life.

First, the math:

Let's say you hire people at $25,000 a year. So:
10 people = $250,000
100 people = $2.5 million
1,000 people = $25 million
10,000 people = $250 million
100,000 people = $2.5 billion

I have oft heard it said in stories about the economy that a healthy economy would be 100,000 new hires a month. So let's say that was our aim. How much would that cost? Well, 36 billion dollars for one year, and 71 billion dollars for two years. (I originally had thought 24 billion, discounting the .5, which it turns out is kind of significant.)

The government could pay for it. The federal government could hire a million and a half new Americorps employees to work in the nation's schools, tackling hiring and education in one fell swoop.

Or the private sector could pay for it. The top 100 richest Americans (all of which have more than $1bn, I assume)(I'll have to check that) could each contribute between $500m and $10bn to rescue the U.S. economy. It could be argued that the money would quickly come back to them in the form of a reinvigorated consumer economy and stock prices.

And that's an overwhelming plan. If the plan was halved so that it was only $18bn a year, it would still have a huge impact on the economy and wouldn't tax the ultra rich nearly as much.

As I have said many times, the rich in this country could re-invigorate the economy if they chose to, through direct spending. Putting money into Wall Street allows companies to amass giant cash reserves and not spend any of it. Putting people to work puts money immediately into the consumer economy and pumps lifeblood into a system that is struggling for air.

Medicaid Spending

A story in the NY Times talks about how Medicaid spending has decreased but also mentions that - with the Health Care law - the rolls will probably increase in the coming years.

I think the ultra-rich in this country could make a huge difference to this problem. It could work one of two ways: either A, a fund is created to replace medicare, covering a certain number of the poor through direct payments; or B, the fund uses it's money to pay for private insurance for large numbers of the poor.

The idea could be tested easily. Cities have statistics on what are the poorest areas of their metropolises. You could pick a neighborhood - or a group of project buildings - and sign them all up for this program. The fund could work with social agencies and non-profits working with the same population to identify those people in need and make sure they are taken off the federal rolls and aren't double-dipping.

Maybe you could add to the program by building a clinic in the neighborhood or assigning a doctor or two (GPs) to that neighborhood or set of buildings.

Actually, now that I remember, I was thinking of a much more widespread plan that involved people from many more income levels.

I have a friend who earns over two hundred thousand dollars a year. I think he could afford to spend $300 a month on an insurance plan for someone who couldn't afford that insurance themselves. Now, my friend has four children, so that might actually be a bit more than he would rather spend. But I'm sure there are plenty of single people and older couples with grown children (or no children) who could more easily afford to pay that smaller amount to help someone who is struggling.

Maybe I should contact my brother's friend who works for the Dept of Labor and see if he can get me statistics on how many people make between $200,000 and $500,000 a year and then break down those earners by age.

The additional benefit of this plan would be that - if the money was spent on insurance plans for low-income people, the money would be going back into the economy. (I suppose it would be either way, since the direct payments plan would go right into the doctor's budgets.)

The interesting thing would be how this would effect the economy in terms of Wall Street vs. Main Street. I say that because I assume that most of these people with multiple billions of dollars have huge investment portfolios. If they were to liquidate $2-$4 billion dollars, I assume it would have an effect on Wall Street. Much the same as if Warren Buffet were to take $20bn out of Wall Street and use it to fund a private jobs program for the country.

Crowdsourcing TV

Here's my question: why hasn't someone come up with crowdsourcing TV yet?

Now, my definition of crowdsourcing TV would be different from what you'd expect, because essentially what I'm going to outline is a subscription service for a particular show; but you'll understand why I use the terms in a minute.

The other day I was reading a Yahoo story about "shows that are in trouble;" that is, shows that have low ratings and will probably be cancelled. I have had a number of shows that I loved that got cancelled far before their time ("Journeyman," "Surface," "Firefly," "[Something] on the Sunset Strip"). I've also read stories about shows that got saved by viewer enthusiasm and outcry; I think "Jericho" was one, but probably the most famous (and successful) is Family Guy.

I've always thought, when I show gets cancelled, "if I had the money, I'd pay for it to keep going." I think at the time I had heard some show cost $1m an episode to produce, and I thought to myself: "If I had 50 million dollars; I might pay to save a show."

So what if I didn't need 50 million dollars? What if I only needed five dollars, because there were a million other people who also wanted to save the show? And since five million @ a million dollars an episode = five episodes, I could pay five dollars a month and keep the show on.

OR: I could make a deal with the company and say: "I'll pay for half the show if you pay for half. I'm bringing down your costs incredibly, why don't you make my dollars go further?" Then, I get ten shows for five dollars and I'm only paying that every other month!

Do you see how quickly this works?

The funny thing is that I don't know if fan networks are as solid these days, even with all the interconnectivity. For instance: could the Facebook fans of "The Mob Doctor" (one of the shows Yahoo! thinks will die first) set up an Indie-a-go-go account and raise a million dollars in dribs and drabs and offer to pay for half the costs of the show in order to sustain it? (Maybe they could pay for advertising and then vote to sponsor particular non-profit ads.)

It would really be a direct way of putting production into the hands of consumers and would give the studios and networks a way to save costs on production. People would literally vote with their dollars.

Of course, there are multiple questions:

1. Are viewers too fickle? If this show dies, is there enough entertainment around that they'll just skip to something else and forget about it?
2. How do you create a structure of trust, so that A) you know you're not getting screwed by the company (who says they won't just take your money and cancel the show?) and B) there is someone to make decisions, so that the mob doesn't descend into chaos?

==

There was another idea I had concerning cancelled show that people loved and that was to turn them into comic books or graphic novels. If the show could prove it had enough fans, the production company could solicit backing to create a graphic novel series that would continue the story (or at least take it to a more natural conclusion). I thought of this while watching an recent series called "Kyle XY." While there were a lot of problems with the show, I still got caught up in the mystery of the story and wanted to see how it "ended." Unfortunately even the extras on the DVDs (which we found on YouTube) just had the producers talking about vague ideas of how the show would have developed without any specific storylines. If they had a different medium they might have been able to keep the writers employed and kept the fans on the hook for another season or two.

Which brings up another point: could you just ask for fan funding and then move the show to the web? The people who pay for it put in their money upfront (which means they don't control access; anyone can watch the show), which they do hopefully because they love the show. Then the show continues to get made and has the possibility of gaining more fans and maybe being picked up again. There's all kinds of things that could happen.

Crowdsourcing is an exciting new phenomenon and I'd like to see it go further and be used in new and creative ways.