Did you know that Monday of this week was Foursquare Day? That’s right, April 16 (4/16, get it?) of every year is Foursquare Day. I’ve noticed a general drop in the amount of Foursquare updates I see in my Twitter stream, but yesterday I saw plenty of people ‘checking in’ so they could receive the Foursquare Day badge.  This reminded me of Pi Day (3/14) last month, and I’m already looking forward to  May 4, not just because it is my wife’s birthday, but because it is Star Wars Day (May the Fourth be with you).

There was a time when fake holidays were created by Hallmark and were for the benefit of the chocolate and candy industry. You know the ones: Grandparent’s Day, Boss’s Day, Secretary’s Day…

But who creates International Talk Like A Pirate Day, and for what purpose? These Culturematic Holidays seem like a relatively recent creation. Pi Day (1988), Star Wars Day (1979), 4/20 (1971) and No Pants Subway Ride (2002) are all of relatively recent vintage. These events have an organic feel to them, devoid of marketing artifice for the most part.

Even a day backed by a corporate entity, TOMS “One Day Without Shoes” (2008) feels like a grass roots movement. Have we overdosed on corporate, overly-marketed holidays? Are we searching for new meaning in our life that isn’t tied to religious traditions?

After a week off (supporting Feltron instead), I’m back to Kickstarter, this time in support of the latest project from Kirby Ferguson, This is not a Conspiracy Theory. Hopefully you are familiar with Kirby’s earlier work, Everything is a Remix, which can only be described as essential if you want to understand creativity.  This time around Ferguson is turning his attention to politics. He describes the project thusly:

 ”A series with massive scope, rooted in solid storytelling. I’ll use history, science, psychology and economics to tell the story, and I will make it relevant, accessible and seriously entertaining.”

Watch the full intro video here.

Kirby Ferguson

Ferguson’s work is an oasis of thoughtfulness in a sea of instant memes, “viral” videos and YouTube stars that get hyped before they do anything (I’m looking at you, Lana Del Rey). Ferguson does his homework to present deep insights and does so in a way that is expertly and professionally crafted. This is why his work stands out, he’s an excellent storyteller. We’ve seemingly got a shortage of this sort of thing right now.  Everyone is racing to create today’s “5 ways to jumpstart Pinterest for brands!” blog post, or crack the Klout algorithm. That’s ok, they’ll always be a place for that sort of thing, but Ferguson’s work deserves our attention, and support.

Here’s something that’s fascinates me: Why do people talking about sports on television dress like bankers and lawyers?

Watch SportsCenter, or NFL Network or any baseball game and the guys doing the talking are all dressed like they are about to do their closing arguments, or they just wrapped up a shoot for a new Men’s Warehouse commercial. Why? Why on Earth do they, and we, feel the need for them to be dressed like this? Haven’t we long ago passed the absurd premise that these people are somehow “journalists” and thus should be dressed like Walter Kronkite or Peter Jennings? Is anyone mistaking Tim McCarver for Edward R. Murrow because they both appear on TV wearing a tie?

Equally fascinating are those attempts to buck this cultural requirement. Remember when ESPN2 debuted:

Yes, that’s Keith Olbermann rockin’ the leather jacket. Let’s just say this experiment in progressive sports broadcasting didn’t last too long at ESPN2 (and neither did Keith).

Of course, individuals have tried to stand out by bucking the conservative politician look. There’s Bud Collins:

Bud is a respected broadcaster and well liked by many, and at this stage in his career he can wear whatever he wants.

Craig Sager, who covers the NBA for TNT has also gone for the “look at me” approach:

The NBA is a flashy league and he’s competing for airtime with his on-air colleague Charles Barkley, who is the verbal equivalent of this outfit. But unlike Collins, I don’t think anyone really takes Sager seriously. Now one could argue we shouldn’t be taking any of these guys seriously, they are talking about sports. But I mean even within the confines of sport, I don’t think people take Sager seriously.

Then you have real extreme cases like Vic “The Brick” Jacobs, I won’t assault your eyes by posting a photo of Vic. Vic is the Dennis Rodman of sports broadcasting.

On the field, the question of appropriate attire for non-participants is also interesting. Look at how Major League Baseball clings to tradition by having managers wear the uniform. As if Jack McKeon or Jim Leyland (80 and 66 years old respectively) might just grab a bat and pinch hit if this thing goes to extra innings.

Of course the NFL is equally ridiculous. Thanks to partnerships with sports apparel companies, it’s ok for Patriots coach Bill Belichick to dress like a Zucotti Park Occupy Wall Street protestor, but when Mike Nolan, former head coach of the 49ers wanted to wear a suit the League threw a penalty for unnecessary classiness. So, this wasn’t a case of the NFL realizing the coaches looking like Tom Landry is a bit outdated in the 21st century, it’s about protecting corporate partners.

But yet the NFL Network, owned by the NFL, doesn’t force the show hosts to wear Reebok or Nike. In fact the GameDay crew puts on a sartorial show every Sunday:

Perhas Deion Sanders (left) and Michael Irvin (right) feel the need to compensate for their pasts. Deion was a flashy player often known as ‘Neon Deion’ or his preferred nickname of ‘Primetime,’ while Irvin got into trouble with the law during / after his time in the NFL. By wearing conservative ‘costumes’ they are reshaping their image, but both are NFL Hall of Famers, they don’t have anything to prove.

Surely there is some middle ground between the arrested adolescence of baseball managers wearing uniforms and the Saville Row look for Fran Charles (above center)?  Certainly Nike and Reebok can create athletic, sharp looking apparel that would be appropriate for on-camera talent. In fact, this seems like a great opportunity missed. As millions of adult males go to work wearing khakis and sweaters, I’m sure they would look to Joe Buck, Bob Costas, Troy Aikman or other on-air personalities for guidance.

But there’s something within culture that is holding this back. Perhaps numerous focus groups have been done showing people won’t respond to ex-jocks and journalism school grads talking Tampa 2 defenses and On-Base percentage unless they are wearing Joseph Aboud ties. Perhaps, in a world where the athletes often have appearances that would seem menacing to ‘mainstream America’ (read: cornrows, dreads, tatoos, piercings) there is a comfort in seeing those in the booth (read: the establishment) setting the ‘proper’ tone.

Of course the establishment is not necessarily the best place to be right now. I’m not sure anything that reminds people of bankers, lawyers, politicians or big business is where I’d want to be right now. Sports are a traditionally very conservative environment. But as culture changed in the 70s and 80s, sport fashion changed too. Thanks to Michael Jordan and Nike, and Michigan’s Fab Five (and Nike) on-court clothing style changed. When folks like Allen Iverson added the ink and cornrows, it’s easy to see how the League / corporate overlords would react by keeping the talent they could control (coaches, owners, on-air talent) in line. Allowing those few jesters (Collins, Sager) to act as a release valve.

Will we see a change in the future? There will certainly be attempts and the one-offs and the niche or fringe segments will take chances. But I don’t know if we’ll see a change anytime soon where the real money is.

It's going to be epic.

If you like sports and new/social media, you are probably (or should be) familiar with Blogs With Balls. The event has featured some of the top names in sports, blogging, sports blogging and marketing. Earlier this year I was fortunate enough to participate in the Pepsi MAX Blogs with Balls Digital Tailgate at SXSW which was very cool. Apparently I didn’t completely embarrass myself because they’ve asked me to participate in TURF Presents: Blogs with Balls 4 Hosted by Bloomberg Sports!

An insane number of amazing people will be at this event. Like who? Well, like: AJ Daulerio of Deadspin, Ives Galarcep of SoccerByIves, Joe Favorito, a NY-area sports PR legend, and some bad ass marketers like Ian Schafer of Deep Focus, Mike Germano of Carrot Creative and Richard “Flytip” Ting from R/GA. Check out the full list here.

Be smart, hook yourself up with tickets right now. Go get ‘em here.

This is an excerpt of a post I contributed to Jinal Shah’s excellent new site, Content Decoded. You can read the entire piece here.

I think one of the bigger trends of the last few years has been increasing ability for consumers to customize the content they receive. At first blush, this seems like a good thing. Being able to pull only the relevant content you want sounds great when there is an overwhelming amount of content out there.  This sort of filtering can work on both qualitative and quantitative levels. But what is often overlooked is what is lost with this sort of filtering, the serendipitous discovery of content.

When I flip through a magazine or newspaper invariably my eye will come across an article that piques my interest. Not something that I’m necessarily a huge fan of, but something close enough that my curiosity has now gotten the best of me. Let me give you an example. I remember seeing a review or interview or some sort of mention of the novel Netherland when it was first published. While critically acclaimed, this wasn’t the type of book that was going to generate Dan Brown-type hype. If I don’t flip by this story in the paper, I’m probably never going to know of its existence. I’ll come back to Netherland in a moment.

This idea of serendipity is important, especially to people working in creative industries. We need a wide base of knowledge and experiences, yet by subscribing to certain feeds, email alerts and newsletters we tend to shrink our knowledge base. But what if, rather than narrow our sources, technology could be used to widen them?

Pandora is a fantastic application for music lovers that helps them discover new music. Not completely alien music, but rather music that is somehow similar to music users already like. So, if say you are a fan of Belle & Sebastian, Pandora will recommend Kruder & Dorfmeister or perhaps Stereo MC’s. That’s cool, I like both of those groups too. But it will also give me Sofa Surfers, a group I’ve never heard of. But I feel comfortable checking them out because there’s a pretty good chance they’ll be in the same ballpark.

Go to Content Decoded for the rest of the idea.

As we approach the end of October and I look back on 2009 I think there is one lesson that stands out from the rest for me: The “Free Economy” has its drawbacks.

I’m not speaking specifically about the web here, though you certainly see many examples of the Free Economy on the Internet. This is a more general statement about how we interact with each other, the value we give things and the commitment we make to others (and the commitment we accept from them).

 From my experience, here are five examples of ways the Free Economy generates a less than stellar exchange:

1. It’s too easy to join

Quick, how many Social Networks, newletters, websites and ‘exclusive societies’ do you belong to right now? I’m guessing you’d need at least both hands to count them. You probably didn’t even think twice about joining them or ask yourself what real benefit you’d gain once you did. Now most of these emails just clog your inbox, you probably don’t even open many of them anymore, you just delete them. And when was the last time you made a real contribution to that group you were so excited to join on LinkedIn nine months ago?

2. It’s too easy to quit

Which of course leads us to the flip side – it’s too easy to quit. Maybe you realized that the group you joined would require some effort on your part. Or you get tired of automatically deleted all those emails. So finally, one day, you decide to take the time to unsubscribe to all these things. As you do so you think to yourself, “I know there was a reason I signed up for these in the first place.” But without any financial connection, it was just too easy to let things slide. 

3. Free creates weak communities

When it’s free to join and free to participate communities become weak. This happens in a couple of different ways. As noted above, it’s too easy to join and you end up with people who aren’t really committed to the cause. They are joining on a whim. Soon you’ve got a lot of dead wood, look at all the people who join Twitter, and then never tweet. The next phase then is quitting which is easy as well, and soon you have a community filled with people flitting in and out, not contributing to the cause, yet still taking up administrative resources.

The other drawback is that it creates an environment for trolls. Take a look at popular YouTube posts, or trending topics on Twitter. They are filled with spammers and trolls mucking up the system. If these people had to pay $5 every time for the privelage of writing, “Get rich using Twitter, ask me how [insert link]” we’d see a lot less of that type of stuff. In this case it may not even be a matter of money. A simple username and password system can be enough of a ‘cost.’

4. Free devalues the product

On a couple of occasions this year I’ve asked friends for a “favor” that included they provide me with a good or service that is part of their livelihood. Maybe I offered some sort of weak barter in exchange, but in retrospect, shame on me. If I valued their talent, I should have offered to pay them the going rate for their services, and if they demured I should have insisted. Once you ask for a “favor” you relinquished all your rights as a consumer. If it isn’t quite what you were looking for that’s too bad, you can’t ask for revisions, they are doing you a favor. Are they not meeting your deadlines? That’s too bad, they are doing you a favor after all.

It works in the other direction as well. If you are asked for the favor, sure

Ok, yes, some things should be free

you want to be a nice guy and say yes, even if it’s not quite up your alley. Then, a couple of days later you realize this isn’t a project you really want to work on, or you have other paying gigs that take precedent.  Pretty soon you start dreading this “favor’ you agreed to. Now everyone is a loser as you aren’t going to do your best work, and your friend isn’t going to get what he wants either.

5. Free creates work of lesser quality

It’s very easy to fall into the thinking of, “Hey, nobody’s paying for this, it doesn’t have to be perfect.” When you create something, whether a community, a good or service, when people aren’t paying for it, you as the creator have an out. It’s going to be hard for people to yell at you regarding the quality because you can always fall back on the ‘you get what you pay for’ retort. Expectations – of yourself, and from the consumer – are lowered in a free transaction. It can work if it is something you are wildly passionate about, but otherwise the quality will suffer.

I’m not some sort of arch capitalist who thinks every last dime needs to be squeezed out of every opportunity, but putting up even some small economic barriers can address many of these issues. I hope that in 2010 I’ll be more thoughtful when it comes to the type of things I decide to participate in and how I ask others to participate in my efforts.