Advice on how to Decrease Already Dwindling Revenue By Alienating Fans: Breeders Cup Twitter Edition

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com, AndyDisco on Twitter

I follow two less people on Twitter now than when I woke up.

I follow a lot of horse racing Tweeters. One of them was a west coast handicapper whose Twitter ID is Pick4andWin. Today he posted the following Tweet aimed at owner of Rachel Alexandra, Jess Jackson:

Jess Jackson why don't you bring your superbowl horse to play on the artificial turf? A "NO-SHOW" in the B/C should be considered a forfeit

I don't blame a west coaster for feeling slighted that the best horse trainer doesn't want to run on their fake surface, especially after that fake surface swallowed up Horse of the Year Curlin last year. I disagreed, but didn't think much of it- he's entitled to his opinion.

Then I got a tweet from BreedersCup, which I can only assume is the official Twitter feed of the Breeder's Cup- it certainly looks convincing, and their tweets up until this point have all seemed in line with what I'd expect from their official Twitter mouthpiece. Until 3 hours ago. The (I assume) Official Breeder's Cup Twitter page re-tweeted the Pick4andWin tweet.

RT @pick4andwin Jess Jackson why don't u bring your SuperBowl horse to play on artificial turf? A "NO-SHOW" in BC shld be considered forfeit

For non-Twitter people, the "RT" means "Re-Tweet" which is like forwarding an email, and in essence is saying, "I echo this sentiment", or "Couldn't have said it better myself". So the (alleged) official Breeder's Cup Twitter page is now "callling out" Rachel Alexandra? For what? Being the best thing for this sport in several years?

Previously, I blogged about the inexcusable stupidity shown by the horse racing Powers that Be (very stupid) for scheduling TWO consecutive Breeder's Cups at a track with a synthetic main track- despite a reduced betting handle last year, and several disappointing performances by traditional dirt horses. I also defended Rachel's decision to sit out the Breeder's Cup on a surface that is alien not only to her, but to common sense as well.

Kudos to the head of the Moronic Department at the Breeder's Cup Twitter office for a job done all too well. Instead of drumming up enthusiasm and keeping your few followers (currently they are following 1,347 people and being followed by an anemic 1,383), you decided to draw a line in the sand and act provincial and tough. Simmer down there, tough guys- you're trying to attract the biggest number of fans you can, not draw sides. How about doing your job and being more PT Barnum and less Don King? This is horse racing, not West Coast versus East Coast rap feuds.

When the new kid in town hosts a party and invites everyone, and the popular kids sit the party out- who is the loser?



See my Socrates-inspired Follow up here.







I'm T.R. Slyder, and that's how you Tangueray.

Told ya.

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com

When I thought in February that Facebook would eventually launch their own version of Twitter I was correct.

According to InsideFacebook, they have reason to believe that Facebook is working on a Twitter app thingy, where you can post a Tweet directly from your Facebook page.

If that's the case I guess my prophecy isn't 100% correct, since I thought Facebook would launch their own version of Twitter, but this is still pretty close.

Is Twitter Creating a new Level of Celebrity?

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com

People love ranking and categorizing level of celebrities. A-list, B-list, television star, movie star, leading man, a star but can't open a movie, reality-show star, oscar winner, etc.

It seems like the current caste system has an A-list, B-List, D-List and also "reality star" for the likes of Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian and Clay Aiken.

I think there is a new caste level that ranks somewhere between "reality star" and "B-list" and it's "Twitter-List".

Whenever you hear about a celebrity Tweet it's never a major star like Jay-Z or Leonard DiCaprio or Michael Jordan. It's Ashton Kutcher, Perez Hilton, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Jeremy Piven or John Mayer. Basically they are celebrities that want to increase their celebrity status from their sofa- making sure to keep their name out there without actually doing anything. I think there's a high correlation between celebrity tweet output and liklihood of calling the papparazzi to alert them of where they'll be in 20 minutes.

Wanting to stay famous or in the news is understandable, but using Twitter to do so strikes me as self-defeating.

Advice for College Graduates

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com


I've been interested in the news of the fallout regarding the Iranian presidential elections. And I've noticed that roles of on-air news journalists seems to have shifted a bit in recent years.

For those journalism graduates who aspire to be an on-air news reporter- my advice to you is to practice reading Tweets from Iran, and looking at stories from iReport.com and commenting on them. That's what today's news consumer demands- reading Tweets. I mean any simpleton can go to Iran and get the stories on their own, but how many people can actually log on to Twitter.com and read 140 characters or less? Not many, that's why CNN and MSNBC are SOOO important these days- they have all those super computers at their headquarters to sift threw all of those Iranian Tweets.

So if you're an aspiring newsperson, you'll want to bone up on typing "Iran" into a Twitter search engine. No one ever said it would be easy. And yes I did say "bone up" two sentences ago.

Ideas for new Sections of the Newspaper

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com

I can't speak for every newspaper in the country, but I know the Chicago Tribune has recently undergone a few structural changes. Last year they changed from the broadpage format to the tabloid format. Before that they also tweaked and consolidated a few of their sections. I've complained before about the monotony of news in the, well, news, about how there are some "news" stories that don't qualify as "news" anymore and could more accurately be described as the "olds". Headlines like "Middle East Peace Talks Fail", "Demonstration in Gaza Turns Violent", "North Korea Reaffirms its Pro-Nuke Stance", "Democratis find Rush Limbaugh's new Rhetoric Objectionable", "MSNBC Anchor/Jon Stewart Dismisses Claims of FoxNews", etc.

I think it's time that the newspapers and news websites, in conjunction with their new infotainment ethos, just sack up and reformat their sections.

CNN.com currently lists the following tabs atop their homepage: Home, World, US, Politics, Crime, Entertainment, Health, Tech, Travel, Living, Business, Sports, Time.com.

Well lets start with the first need: The Travel section needs to go. I'm not sure how long that's been a tab of theirs, but it's vestigial at this point- perhaps a holdover from more prosperous times. All the travel-related stories I see or hear are all about the ailing Travel Sector of our economy- hotels are slashing rates and hardly keeping their heads above water, Vegas is withering, airlines are struggling, people are now partaking of "staycations", etc. And you know where I hear a lot of these stories? On CNN. So lets do away with that tab.

For the "World" tab, that name is too inclusive. Why not just be accurate and title it, "Angry Arabs, Mexican drug-ring stories, North Korea, China, War".

"Politics" can be "Capitol Hill Name-calling and Pictures of the Obamas"

"Crime" can be done away with or retitled "Wall St. Scandals", "Entertainment" should stop misleading us and just be titled "Celebrity's Personal Lives and Movie Earnings", "Tech" can be renamed "Google, Apple, Microsoft and Video Games", the tab titled "Living" can be titled- "Home Decorating, Obesity-reduction tips, and Thrift", and what functions as the "Business" tab ought to be called "How the NYSE Did Today and Green Energy".

They could also add a tab for "Television 'news'". When did the happenings of American Idol, Dances with the Stars and Jimmy Kimmel's monologue become "news"?

Another tab that too many news outlets employs is Twitter. I've harped on this before, but it didn't seem to help. The opinion of Frankie357 in Bismarck, ND. is not news. If I wanted his opinion I'd go to his Twitter account. For CNN to pass of his reaction to news is lazy at best. Shouldn't they assume that I care more about my own opinion than his? The Daily Show voiced something yesterday that I've been saying for awhile- why would I follow CNN on Twitter? If I like CNN, how about I follow them on CNN? Same with bloggers. You're lucky I follow you on your tv show or website, don't ask me to follow you on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and every other website du jour. Pick a medium, make it the best you can and that's it. Don't half assedly run 77 different media outlets.

Like most societal calamaties, we have corporate greed to thank. Not content for a mere niche audience or target demographic, every single news outlet had to become a Wal-Mart of news- One Stop Shopping. Why go to a hardware store, grocery store, record store and sporting goods store when you can get all those things at Wal-Mart in one stop? News outlets adopted that mindset and asked- why read a newspaper, People magazine, Forbes, Sports Illustrated, The Onion, Perez Hilton or watch Late Night TV, Sports Center, Dancing With the Stars, American Idol, or follow anyone else on Twitter? We've got all of them right here! Why get what you actually want when you want it, when we'll shove crap down your throat that you don't care about?? We'll tell you what to care about! Sure you can go to a nice steakhouse and have a great dinner, but who wants just one kind of cuisine? What you SHOULD want is to get a little bit of every kind of cuisine-that we choose, put it in a blender, and choke down an unpallateable shake! That way you aren't missing out on anything. That terrible taste that you're tasting is the feel of ignorance leaving your body!

Americans are getting stupid enough on our own, we don't newspapers, print journalism and news websites to help lead the way.

I Didn't get Plagarized This Time, But....

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com


My Twitter prophecy may be coming true! If this well-written piece is any indication, I may be proved correct in less time than I thought!

The latter talks about how played-out Twitter has become now that so many celebrities (and pseudo-celebrities) are on Twitter, and just use it to hock their goods. Confounding that further is the discovery that several celebrity Tweeters had ghost-Tweeters.

It's a neat concept and has its rightful place on the internet. I just think that place is shrinking.

UPDATE: I just realized what this Twitter phenomenon reminded me of. You know when you were like 12 and everyone had a nickname? Then eventually someone would do something foolish, like fall on their ass while rollerblading, then check your ass and realize you have a huge scrape now on your ass, and one of your friends would be like, "Nice job Rollerblade ass. OH MY GOD!! Ha Ha Ha, that is TOTALLY your new nickname! From now on everybody, his nickname is "Rollerblade Ass"!! Oh man, you will be the laughingstock of the school, Rollerblade Ass!"

100% of the time anyone ever says, "Oh man, that's your new nickname!" it won't be. The kiss of death is saying that. Real nicknames are organic, and start out more quietly and eventually ascend to permanence. I've given out more nicknames than anyone else I know, and I know that to be true.

The media's insitance that Twitter was the wave of the future, struck me as reminiscent of the instance shown when friends insist on your new nickname. When it's a headline that Oprah is now on Twitter, you may as well say "That's your new nickname, Rollerblade Ass!". Countless articles beat us over the head with, "this is the new biggest deal ever and will alter our lives and grandkid's lives!!!" except, that never works either. When a late-night host asks quests, "So do you Twitter? or Tweet or Tweeter? Man do I sound lame.", you know its doomed.

When I think of the biggest technology deals now- iPods, Google, text messaging, etc. As ubiquitous and indispensable as they are now, they started off humbly. No one ever said "this will take over the world, Rollerblade Ass", they were just new products that may work, or may fail. iPods were embraced reluctantly after the failure of the much-hyped mini discs, remember those? Google was a neat internet tool, but they weren't the first search engine. Other search engines, like Yahoo and Web Crawler already seemed totally serviceable, no one predicted they'd grow into the behemouth that they are. Can anyone remember the first time they heard of text messaging? I can't. You never read about how Ashton Kutcher or Oprah is now texting. Talk show hosts didn't ask guests questions effectively asking, "So do you text, or are you not just a neanderthal, but a parciularly lame neanderthal?" like they do with Twitter.

Despite a lack of immediate annointing from the media, their organic growth was sure and steady and now they're staples of tens of millions of lives. Whereas, I think Twitter is akin to the boy who called, "Rollerblade Ass".

Twitter? Really?

By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com


I haven't posted in a long time and thank you to the people that asked me about when I'd be posting again (Sarah, and Kevin by name).

I haven't had as much spare time as I had previously, but posts will come. And I promise a lot of videos from my when I watched midget wrestling with my friends.

But what I wanted to mention/ask in my first post back was, what the eff is up with Twitter? I just don't see that site ever taking off (moreso than it has already).

So it's a forum where everyone comments, but in less than 140 characters? So if another 9/11 were to (God forbid) happen, I could log on to Twitter to get Kevien Federline's reaction AND Shaquille O'neal's?? Wow. That sounds necessary. Why go read the New York Times, Chicago Tribune or DrudgeReport, when I can read a terse comment from a guy in Abilene, TX. Thank the lord.

It isn't that I am 1,000% positive that the model has 0% hope of success, but once webcams become more prevelent, if YouTube comes out with a 45 second-limit Vlog application to rival Twitter, how would Twitter compete? What if Facebook did the same thing? Big problem for Twitter. It's like if I start a company selling X and open a few shops selling X. Once Wal-Mart sells a passibly knock0ff of X, my company is done. If what Twitter is selling is people's real-time opinions, which I think they are, they are doomed. There are a lot of approximate avenues for that already, they just need to add a Twitter-like feature to their site. Isn't Facebook, and YouTube already an established, if extended, Twitter?

Hasn't Twitter reached it's ceiling already? How huge can that site really get? If you really wanted someone's commentary on a given topic, can't you just go that someone's own webpage?

To completely undermine everything I just typed- I'll admit I'm not a Twitter member, and not fully familiar with its product. But I have heard a TON about it recently, and I also heard a ton about Flooze.com, Pets.com and the Howard the Duck movie.

I'll go on the record as saying I'm the only guy to admit that I just don't see Twitter succeeding. I said it.