I’m in London right now, meeting my new Dare colleagues and celebrating the company’s 10th anniversary. As you can imagine, much of the talk revolves around the English National Team and their rather tepid performance in the FIFA World Cup. The pundits, journalists and former players, along with the everyday fans, all have opinions about the current squad.

A lot of the conversation centers on how great the English Premiership is, and why English players who star in that competition, along with the Champions League, don’t carry that quality over to the World Cup.  I’m of the opinion that England doesn’t underachieve at the World Cup, rather the England squad just doesn’t have that may good players.

Over the last six years, English teams have made six appearances in the Champions League final, featuring more teams, more times, than any other country. Arsenal, ManU, Chelsea and Liverpool all making at least one appearance. Only Italy has put more than one team in the final over this time. Sounds good, right? But something is amiss when you look deeper into the stats.

Six English teams in six years has produced 20 English players. More than any other nation, but just over three per English side.

Wayne and Fabio discussing summer vacation plans.

That’s right, English teams average about three English players. By comparison, 14 Spanish players have featured in the last six Finals and two Spanish sides (Barcelona two times) have played in the game, so seven Spanish players per side. A significant difference. Italy has seen three sides and 11 players over the same time period – about the same as England. Aha you say, England poor in the World Cup, Italy won in 2006 so, Rick, your theory is disproven already. Well, when you look carefully you’ll see that in 2006-07, AC Milan made it the Finals with seven Italian starters, just 10 months after Italy won the World Cup. In 2010 Inter Milan won the Champions League without one Italian starter! Italy crashed out of the World Cup one month later.

Let’s look at some other countries. Holland, still alive in this World Cup, and though they haven’t had a club side in the Champions League final they are the only country to have at least one player (12 total) in each of the last six Champions League Finals. You know what other countries have put a lot of players in the Champions League Final? Brasil (13) and Argentina (9). Germany, who are doing quite well in this World Cup, thank you very much, haven’t had a great run in the Champions League recently. Until of course, this year when Bayern Munich, and five German players, featured in the final.

Here’s something else to consider: Twelve teams – six of them English! – and how many English coaches? Yep, zero. Spanish (3), Dutch (2), Italian (2) and French (1) coaches? Plenty of those. Those teams have won a World Cup and European title, and been a World Cup runner up. Coaches from Scotland, Portugal and even Israel have been featured in the Champions League final.

So here’s what I’m seeing: English players are under represented based on their clubs appearances in the Champions League final. Clubs like Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and ManU are English in name only. English coaching is way below par.

English fans and media should recalibrate their expectations. Success should be advancing beyond the group stage, and that with a little luck. Anything beyond that is gravy.

For the vast majority of the history of television, the faces you saw on the screen were predominantly white. And not just white, but WASP-white. Eventually Jews and African-Americans found a place. More recently (last 20 years), Hispanics and Asians have finally earned a spot on the screen as well.  Now Hollywood and Madison Avenue have turned their attention to the people of Southern Asia,  and like other minorities before them, Southern Asians are mostly seen as sidekicks, comic relief and crude stereotypes.

NBC is at the forefront of utilizing Indians, with The Office, 30 Rock, Parks & Rec and Community all tapping the minority du jour. In NBC’s defense, most of the characters on those shows (regardless of background) are charactertures. Glee features an actor of Pakistani descent in a supporting (and that’s being generous) role. Many of these shows are audience and critical favorites so it’s not just junk and schlock that are featuring these minorities. But this progress needs to be tempered. A deeper dive into these examples shows there’s a long way to go:

Aziz Ansari from NBC's Parks & Rec

On The Office, actress Mindy Kaling’s character, Kelly Kapoor, is a bit player at best – despite the fact that Kaling is a writer and producer of the show.  On 30 Rock, Maulik Pancholy plays Alec Baldwin’s assistant – he probably gets three lines per every two episodes. Parks & Rec features the talented stand up comedian Aziz Ansari as part of the ensemble cast (Ansari is this year’s host for the MTV Movie Awards). On Community, Danny Pudi, like Ansari, is a member of an ensemble cast. On Glee, Iqbal Theba plays the school principal who is usually the butt of jokes. So, no real opportunities as featured stars.

Kal Penn from the Harold and Kumar films is probably the only, or at least the leading, example of an Indian actor having had a lead role in a major Hollywood production. This leads us to the issues surrounding the film The Last Airbender (based on the truly excellent Nickelodeon cartoon, Avatar). The source material features all Asians (predominantly if not totally of the Far Eastern variety) but the movie has shifted things a bit. Notably, the heroes were originally to be played by Caucasian actors and several of the villain roles are scheduled to be played by actors of Indian descent. Read the terrific website Racebending.com for more on this.

Neil Sadhu is a first generation Indian-American as well as screenwriter and actor in Hollywood. His credits include writing for Smallville and a role in front of the camera in the award-winning student film, Diwali. Neil provides a unique, first-person insight on the situation:

If you think about it, South Asians are still a very young community in the United States.  Indian immigrants didn’t come here in the masses until the 80′s and 90′s.  So it’s not surprising that the roles out there are most often stereotypical and possibly degrading. However, I consider it the growing pains of this generation of American-born Indians.  By and large, we want to hold onto our cultural identity, but at the same time, assimilate as any other minority would.  The subtext of what’s being depicted on movie screens and on television is that struggle.  I believe that as long as the exposure continues, it’s only a matter of time before harmony is reached.

The new emerging use of Southern Asians on television isn’t limited to programming. Advertisers, especially here in New York, are (guilty of) doing it as well.  Take a look at this Metro PCS ad:

They talk and dress funny. Ha ha. The two characters, Ranjit and Chad, have a Facebook page as well (looks fan created). Not to be outdone, New York sports cable network SNY has the following:

It’s as if the creative team who put this ad together were channeling a scene from Do The Right Thing.

For further insights I turn to Michael Hastings-Black, creative strategist at Desedo. MHB and Desedo are steeped in the Desi culture, I strong recommend you read his remarkable presentation on American-Muslim Consumer Identity. Here’s Michael’s take:

In the last 3 years, TV has reached a new norm in which Desis are regularly part of ensemble casts. Within this space, it is important to note the distinction between authorship and objectification.

On shows like Community or Parks and Recreation, actors Danny Pudi and Aziz Ansari are able to play with the layers and nuances of being both American and Desi, and the accompanying identity politics therein.

This is a stark contrast to commercials like the recent SNY or Metro PCS spots that mine the idea of Desi ‘otherness’ as a source of humor, something to be laughed at, not laughed with.

As a contrast, check out this Fiber One spot:

And read this from Pete Johnson, creative director at Saatchi & Saatchi New York, the agency for General Mills cereals (via Stuart Elliott):

Mr. [Ajay] Mehta “is indeed of Indian descent,” Mr. Johnson says, and for more information, you can visit his Web site.

Mr. Mehta “was our first choice throughout casting” for the Fiber One spot, Mr. Johnson says, because “his diction, his poise and his gravitas allow him to deliver a lot of information in an entertaining and engaging way.”

By the way, Mr. Mehta is playing not merely the manager of a single store, Mr. Johnson says, but the regional manager — “an important distinction if you ask him.”

Reflect on those two approaches to portraying people from Southern Asia, then read this [source Wikipedia]:

[A]ccording to the census report on Asian Americans issued in 2004 by the U.S. census bureau, 64% of Indian Americans had a Bachelor’s degree or higher, the highest for all national origin groups. In the same census, 60% of Indian-Americans had management or professional jobs, compared with a national average of 33%. Indian Americans, along with Japanese and Filipino Americans, have some of the lowest poverty rates for all communities, as well as one of the lowest rates of single parent households (7% versus the national average of 15%). Indian Americans also earn the highest average income out of all national origin groups. This has resulted in several stereotypes such as that of the “Indian Doctor”.^[9]

Not only is the representation of Indians by Metro PCS and SNY cheap and easy, it’s also pretty poor from a branding perspective. As a general rule using

Metro PCS characters Ranjit & Chad - Off the hizzee!

base stereotypes doesn’t impress highly educated people, it insults them.

So, after the Jews and African-Americans; after the Hispanics and Asians, we now have the era of the Indians and Gays as the go-to minorities on television. Progress? Perhaps not, but maybe so. It reminds me a bit of the famous quote from Mohandas K. Ghandi:

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”

No longer ignored, Southern Asians may be in the “ridicule” stage right now. Perhaps soon will come the time when they win.

Next up is Dennis Deery in out continuing look at Age of Conversation 3 authors.

Rick Liebling: Give us a brief overview of what you wrote about.

Dennis Deery: My essay gave a brief oversight of a typical day in my social-media life, at the end bringing the focus back to the human and social aspects of the media we use.

Rick Liebling: What drew you to the Age of Conversation project?

Dennis Deery: I’d read the previous two books and found them to be a fantastic example of large-scale collaboration bringing a lot of really talented people together to discuss the important issues surrounding the new world of online conversation. I jumped at the chance to offer my two cents in such great company.

Rick Liebling: What aspect of marketing / Social Media is being overblown right now? I think the whole social media thing is being largely overblown right now.

Dennis Deery: Folks have a lot of trouble understanding new things in technology, so there’s a tendency to try to simplify, and then everyone jumps on that simplified bandwagon. People need to remember that the social is all that matters. The media will change and evolve over the years, but the social connections have to remain central.

Rick Liebling: Where are the real opportunities in marketing / Social Media right now?

Dennis Deery: With the focus on conversations, the world is beginning to rediscover the importance of stories in how we build communities. This leaves the world wide open for small businesses and organizations to make an impact.

Human-scale organizations, almost by definition, have better stories to tell than do mega-corporations. Those who focus on storytelling and community will be the winners in the coming years.

Rick Liebling: Predictions are cliche, instead, tell me one thing you are going to make happen this year?

Dennis Deery: I’m doing far more speaking this year, to wider audiences than just tech audiences. People are more curious about tech developments than I’ve ever seen in my 20 years in business. This is a great chance to get out and evangelize the use of technology to help improve conversations and communities. We’re creating new communities online as never before, and with some intentional thought we can make these communities better than ever before.

Bio:

Dennis Deery is the founder and principal consultant at Irish Rose Consulting, based in Menomonie, Wisconsin. He specializes in helping non-traditional technology users to put technology to work in their business or non-profit organization. He has a background in software development, web site development, technology planning and community development. His company web site is at http://irose.com, and his personal blog is at http://www.dennisdeery.com.

I first met Gaurav back in 2008. I was helping put together the Interesting New York Conference and he was a speaker. I was impressed with his honesty and authenticity.  Gaurav is a thought-leader and someone worth listening to so I’m pleased to include him in these Age of Conversation 3 author interviews.

Rick Liebling: Give us a brief overview of what you wrote about.

Gaurav Mishra: My chapter is actually a fictional story about a young brand manager in India, who has an epiphany about how marketing is changing and decides to build a community for young mothers to connect with them and convert them into brand evangelists.

Rick Liebling: What drew you to the Age of Conversation project?

Gaurav Mishra: When Drew and Gavin announced the first Age of Conversation book, I was attracted to the idea of writing a collaborative book on social media. Since then, the Age of Conversation community has matured into a vibrant network of marketing and technology thought leaders, so being a part of the community is as much of a draw now as contributing to the books themselves.

Rick Liebling: What aspect of marketing / Social Media is being overblown right now?

Gaurav Mishra: I think we focus far too much on the social networking tools themselves and not enough on what we will do with them. So, we tend to equate social media strategy with being on Facebook and Twitter, instead of building and nurturing online communities for the long term.

Rick Liebling: Where are the real opportunities in marketing / Social Media right now?

Gaurav Mishra: I think that brands are beginning to realize that 21st century marketing is really about organizing and energizing their evangelists. So, instead of adding social media to their marketing campaigns as an afterthought, they will choose to build their entire marketing programs around long-term online communities that come together around a big social object.

Rick Liebling: Predictions are cliche, instead, tell me one thing you are going to make happen this year?

Gaurav Mishra: This year, I’ll focus my energy on evangelizing the idea that social media marketing works best when it’s outside-in instead of inside-out. So, the right approach is to start with a big social object — a lifestyle, a cause or an interest — and build a community around it, instead of trying to generate buzz for your latest TVC. It’s a counter-intuitive idea in a TVC-centric marketing world, but it’s an idea whose time has come.

To read and learn more from Gaurav, follow his blog, Gauravonomics.

Introducing another of my fellow Age of Conversation 3 authors, Jeff Cutler…

Rick Liebling: Give us a brief overview of what you wrote about.

Jeff Cutler - Future feeder of coyotes.

Jeff Cutler: Get Busy Pitching Social Media was the title of my chapter. My premise was that you’d best be aware of how much effort and genuine care goes into sharing your expertise with others. It was pithy and fun – or so said all the reviewers.

RL: What drew you to the Age of Conversation project?

JC: The community. Like any social media project, there is a sense of everyone paddling the boat so we all get rolling faster. Mixed metaphors are also part of the requirement. We all either sink or cross the finish line together, swimmingly.

RL: What aspect of marketing / Social Media is being overblown right now?

JC: That it’s easy. It isn’t. The belief that anyone can teach this stuff is way overblown. I am the social media trainer for the Society of Professional Journalists. I got that gig because I can impart knowledge, create content and be effective doing both. Some people are NOT teachers. And MOST people don’t really know the intricacies of these tools. So I say leave it to the experts, the same as if you had a plumbing problem or a hernia. Don’t think you fix these things yourself just because you think you understand the steps.

RL: Where are the real opportunities in marketing / Social Media right now?

JC: In the educational markets, in international collaboration, in small to medium size businesses. Until the larger firms catch up and do away with their legacy attitude, they’ll never be nimble enough to use social media effectively and as it is intended.

RL: Predictions are cliche, instead, tell me one thing you are going to make happen this year?

JC: I’m going to see if I can get a coyote to eat one of my cats. Hopefully it will be the dumb one. Also as seriously, SRSLY, I plan to expand my reach and do a lot more training and have a lot more fun doing it. I’m already working with international consulates, large universities and a number of small businesses to show them how to leverage these tools as part of their marketing strategy. I want to – AND AM GOING TO – help more organizations use social media to succeed. Oh, and I might write a piece for AOC4 when Drew calls me again.

Ok that coyote answer was the best one I’ve heard so far. Thanks Jeff, and everyone, go get a copy of Age of Conversation 3.

Jeff Cutler is a content creator and social media strategist with 21 years experience in traditional journalism and new media. He is the Social Media Trainer for the Society of Professional Journalists nationwide. With interests that range from food (he’s one of the hosts of NomX3.com) to technology (he regularly attends and reports on technology events like CES Las Vegas), Jeff harnesses the power of social media in his job and his avocations.

Jeff has advised the University of Massachusetts, the New York Press Association, AIM Mutual Insurance Group, HRM Diet, MetroWest Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Women Business Owners and a number other businesses on how to leverage social media in their operations.

Jeff is a published author; has written for WBUR (NPR Boston), the Boston Globe, AutomotiveRhythms.com, New York Post, Gatehouse Media, MobileMag.com, Technology Review, and other publications. You can find Jeff at jeffcutler.com.

As the 2010 FIFA World Cup approaches, American media – those who normally cover sports and those that don’t – turn their eyes to the sport and produce pieces meant to look inside the game. Two recent efforts come from Sports Illustrated and Harper’s.  If you want to know why most people in the United States A) Don’t care about soccer, B) Only care about soccer once every four years, or C) Have a real disliking for the sport, then read these two pieces.

Yes, that's how soccer is played in every other country in the world.

First, Sports Illustrated runs a cover story titled The Beautiful Game for their May 24 issue. I’ll set aside the fact that “The Beautiful Game” is a hoary cliche that is decades old. Half the feature, which is written by the terrific Grant Wahl, is really more of a photo essay. This being SI, the photos are absolutely fantastic. But my issue is with the editorial direction of the feature. The photos are meant to show how soccer is truly a global game (the subhead on the cover is: “What Soccer means to the World”). Now, soccer is played everywhere and means many things to many people. Sports Illustrated has chosen to focus on what it means to poor, impoverished people in third world nations such as Angola, Bhutan, Haiti, Nicaragua and Kenya. Forget the fact that soccer is also played in Germany and Australia, Japan and Saudi Arabia. Instead, just focus on those who play the game on dirt pitches, with no shoes and two trees for goals. What does the average Sports Illustrated reader take from this? That soccer is played by poor people in countries most Americans couldn’t find on a map. The obvious conclusion? Soccer isn’t an important sport. It can’t be if it can be played like that.

After the photo essay, the magazine focuses on some key players who will feature in the tournament. First up, Didier Drogba, he of the recent Vanity Fair cover shot. The article, rather than focus on Drogba’s life with London club Chelsea, which has made him a multi-millionaire, focuses on the plight on his homeland, war torn Cote D’Ivoire. Again, reinforcing the notion that soccer is an exotic sport played by the poor and dangerous.

The second feature is on Brazil, the nation often cited as the embodiment of the phrase, The Beautiful Game. But this article is about how Brazil don’t play that style anymore. About how the Brazilian Police have embarked on a campaign to take back Rio’s poor favelas from violent druglords.  Admittedly I’m pulling select quotes here, but the vast majority of the World Cup coverage in this issue seems designed to repel the casual fan.

Now let’s turn our attention to Harper’s, and their cover story,  “How Homeless Soccer Explains the World.” First, the title of the article is a play on the Franklin Foer book, How Soccer Explains the World. That book is a poor step-child to the brilliant Simon Kuper book, Soccer Against the Enemy, which

Possibly the best book written on soccer.

intelligently examined the role of the sport across the globe.

The Harper’s article is “about” soccer only tangentially. What is it really about? It’s about dirty, rotten, vile homeless people who lie, cheat, steal and fight. Oh, and kinda sorta play soccer. Or not. The Homeless World Cup is actually a phenomenal program that is a fantastic, positive human interest story. But why cover it that way when you can portray soccer as a sport for homeless scumbags?

Back to the title of the article, I’m wondering, how exactly does Homeless Soccer Explain the World? Should I take it that the world, which loves soccer, is filled with homeless scumbags?

Believe me, as a soccer fan I’m fine with mainstream media no longer writer “how about this soccerball game?” stories, painfully trying to explain the rules of the game and focusing only on one or two U.S. Men’s National Tam members. And maybe these two examples are the exception, not the rule, but they are so phenomenally disappointing that they need to be called out.

Both of these publications have the resources and skilled staff to write interesting, insightful and thought-provoking stories on the sport, yet both to the cheap way out to the detriment of themselves and the growth of the sport in this country.