In rough economic times, companies are cutting their advertising budgets. But where should they cut?

There appear to be two major options: production and media (air time, etc.). I posit that it is wiser to cut media before production, rather than the opposite.

Cutting production

I can think of two theories that might support cutting production before cutting media: the KISS theory and the Any Publicity theory.

The KISS theory: Keep it simple, stupid. Sometimes, simple ads are more effective than complex ads. It is important to note, however, that simple is not inexpensive. An ad can be produced well or produced poorly, whether it's simple or complex.

The Any Publicity theory: It has been said that any publicity is good publicity. In days with limited outlets for publicity, this may have been a compelling argument. In our media-saturated environment, however, anyone can get publicity. Literally anyone. Think YouTube. Additionally, we've changed from a push economy (if we make it, they will buy) to a pull economy (I'll tell ya what I want, what I really really want), consumers can punish companies for bad publicity by not purchasing from them.

With these theories put to rest, we're left with crappy ads plastered all over the airwaves. Blah.

Cutting media

I am sure there are many theories that would discount this option. The most prominent that I can think of, however, is the Exposures theory.

Exposure theory: Advertising has traditionally been measured by number of exposures. How many people had the opportunity to see it? Clearly, cutting the media budget would cut the potential exposures. As any B2B marketer would tell you, however, is that QUALIFIED leads are what count. A million men could see your ad, but if you're selling lipstick, you haven't really accomplished anything. If, however, you reach just ten percent of your normal exposures, but they're women, you've actually INCREASED your revenue potential.

And, most important of all, it would rescue us all from CRAPPY ADS!

I just heard Taylor Swift sing on Jay Leno. I've heard one song of hers over and over again on television. "White Horse," or something like that, I think. I have to say... I am not impressed.

I think I heard that she writes her own songs, so I have to give her credit for that. I do really like the lyrics.

But I just don't understand what people hear in her voice. She sounds like a little kid who's forced to sing in a school play or something. It'd be sweet if she was nine, but she's not. Some people just ought to stay on the OTHER side of the microphone.

Speaking of Late Night, does anyone know why Conan O'Brien has been on reruns since... umm... I can't remember the last time I saw a new one. Right now, Triumph the Insult Dog (I hate him) is in St. Paul at the Republication National Convention. I'll watch, because it's St. Paul, but come on. Seriously?

And speaking of politics (I'm killer with the transitions tonight, huh?), I had to share this little tidbit from today's Chicago Tribune. Just to give you some context, the Governor of Illinois is Rod Blagojevich. The title of the article is, "Feds taped Blagojevich." Here are my favorite parts:

"Blagojevich has been under federal scrutiny for more than three years despite riding into office as a reformer who vowed to overhaul state government following the scandal-scarred administration of Republican George Ryan, who is serving a 6½-year prison sentence for corruption.

He repeatedly has said, "The truth shall set you free" in answers to reporters on every new development in the investigation. But the news of the expanding probe has crippled Blagojevich's approval ratings, which sank to an all-time low of 13 percent in a recent Tribune poll."

So, basically, Chicago replaced one criminal with another. Way to go, guys. Good thinking. :-P

Last night, I recognized for the first time that my man and I have generational differences.

We're four years apart. We joke that he could drive when I was in elementary school and such, but really, four years doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Not a big deal, that is, until you factor in technology.

Most of my friends were born between the mid 1970s and mid 1980s. According to Wikipedia, a generation is typically considered a 30-year period. Yet, during this short 10-year time span, the technological revolution has stratified this group into what are essentially mini-generations.

When did computers enter your life? Or the Internet? Or cell phones?

• I had green-screen Apples with floppy floppies in probably first or second grade.
• In junior high, I had to get an "Internet license" to go online at school.
• By senior year of high school, I had my first cell phone and we had a computer at home with Windows.
• I downloaded MP3s in college before Napster went under (enough to FILL my 3 gig laptop hard drive).
• I've had two more personal Web pages since AOL hometown, plus I've edited or managed another seven for work.
• I've been on MySpace for three and a half years, and I'm currently active on MySpace and Facebook.

Will future generations continue to be truncated by continued technological revolutions? Will I even be able to talk to my children, or will their lives be so fundamentally different from mine that we're not a generation apart, but tens of generations apart?

Did anyone else watch Saturday Night Live last week?

I've always been fairly indifferent toward Beyonce. I enjoyed the wide variety of strong women who broke into the music scene in the mid-90s. But aside from that, I haven't had much of an opinion on her.

Until last Saturday.

Her live performance of "Single Ladies" was awful. The song is catchy, the message behind the song seems pretty cool (from what I could understand). But the performance? Where do I even start...?

I'm so annoyed with politics. It's such a polarizing factor in our communities. Seriously.

NPR had a story the other day about whether people thought the candidates were crossing the lines with negative ads. Two back-to-back callers:

One caller said she was an Obama supporter and said it was completely unfair for McCain to bring up Obama's association with Ayers. She said that the campaigns should stick to REAL associations, like McCain and the S&L Crisis folks. The announcer said, "So it's okay if your candidate does it, but not okay if his opponent does..." The caller just kind of stammered for a while.

The VERY NEXT caller was a McCain supporter and went on for quite some time. She started with Obama's bad policies and digressed until she said that she believed Obama wasn't even a U.S. citizen and that the government was covering up his citizenship status.

CRAZY PEOPLE! What on earth is it about politics that makes us completely irrational?

PS: Thank goodness SNL didn't mention that the pyscho lady was from Minnesota. It might blow our good press from the RNC.

At a friend's beautiful wedding this weekend, I saw the perfect illustration of unconditional love. And it wasn't the bride and groom.

Don't get me wrong... I'm sure the bride and groom have this sort of love. But how could you not love a man in a tuxedo... especially one doing the obligatory dance with small children?? It's easy to love then.

Unconditional love, though, is loving when it's difficult. I thought the perfect illustration was the couples on the dance floor. There were men who were horrible dancers, but their wives were proud to be dancing on the floor next to them. Or there were the couples that had their own sense of rhythm... not a rhythm that had anything to do with the current song, but a rhythm that they shared only with each other.

The whole "love is blind" thing is kind of a crock of s**t, as far as I'm concerned. If you have to ignore one of your senses to like someone, you've got a problem. Unconditional love is seeing those things that some might want to turn a blind eye to and cherishing them.

May we all be as lucky as the bald dancing guy to find someone who loves us even if we dance like a fool.

I am reminded once again why I enjoy political theory but despise political reality.

Everyone has been talking lately about the Republican members of the House who voted against the Bailout Plan because their constituents didn't like it and they were afraid they wouldn't get re-elected if they did something unpopular.

If you'll recall, they are members of the House of Representatives because they are supposed to represent their constituents. If the American public is against a particular course of action, the government should not take that action.

Now, in this particular case, there seems to be more incompetence afoot than forgetting the reason behind the true meaning of the word "representative." It appears that the government has a dreadful communications department. The American public was against the bill primarily because of how it was explained. When they started to feel the effects of the bill, they realized that the explanation was dreadfully lacking, and began to change opinions.

The theory behind this form of government is that representatives will represent the well-reasoned wishes of their informed electorate. The reality is that nearly every word of the theory has failed.

Bah-humbug. The sky is falling. Here comes the handbasket.

Most days, Fast Company magazine sends an e-mail called, The Big Idea, with a quote about a current topic or whatnot.

Anyway, September 26th's quote was, "MySpace's mammoth new jukebox will recapture the audience the social network lost to Facebook."

Granted, I have seen a small exodus from one to the other; however, I don't understand the tug of war between the two platforms. The two were founded for different reasons, and these founding goals have been the basis for how these two platforms have developed. They serve different needs. Whether it's two different people, or one person with two different social networking needs, MySpace and Facebook present two distinct options.

Hopefully the new jukebox system will remind MySpacers that they're not on an inferior platform, just a different one. Loyal MySpacers should know that the biggest network isn't the most important part of this platform -- the network that exposes you to the best new music, best thought-provoking discussions and best artistic expressions in every media is what's important.

For Facebook users, a big network is important, but not necessarily a passionate network. Facebook is about connecting with past and present friends, sharing what's happening in your life, but not necessarily sharing your most personal expressions -- your written, photographed, or strummed expressions. It's like a never-ending, virtual class reunion: this is where I went to school, where I work, who I married, etc., etc.

So enough of the rivalry. MySpacers and Facebookers can peacefully co-exist, even if the MySpacer and the Facebooker are one and the same.

It looks like this site is still pretty new, but the concept is fantastic!

The Next Big Sound

This site has two pieces... one for musicians and one for people who know (or think they know) bands that have potential. Bands can upload demos to the site. Then the future moguls can "sign" the bands that have the most potential. There's some sort of points system for the moguls and a list of most-signed bands (click on the "Charts" link).

I'm no mogul, but I do enjoy listening to music. I'm listening to the current Top 10 signed artists.

Check it out!