Bill Cammack

Maria Ogneva, Bill Cammack, Josephine Dorado & Brett Petersel

Sarah Cooley & Bill Cammack ….. Accidentally Co-Starring Jonathan Dingman :/

“Cyclist Struck Here” – Washington, DC

My friends Kathryn Jones & Charlie Oliver put together this web-a-thon, and it’ll be streaming today between 1pm and 9pm EST! :D

Reader “Ford” left a comment on my “Women’s Guide to NYC Dating” and pointed out an interesting article by Jonathan Soma which talks about why there aren’t really 210,820 more single women than men in NYC.

I think Jonathan’s interactive map is fascinating and his article is well-written. I’d like to talk about a few of the points he makes.

oh… This isn’t going to be funny. This is going to be technical. If you’re looking for your daily email simpleton joke, click the “back” button on your browser, now. :D

JS: Take those 210k ladies and spread them over the entire NYC-New Jersey-Nothern PA area and what’ve you got? Answer: not that much! Your odds of meeting a single woman in the general population is 10% better in Ashville, NC.

This may or may not be true. I have no actual opinion, because I’ve never been to Ashville, NC. I’ve been to quite a few hic towns, though, and you’re much better off having way more women spread out over a vast area than a few women concentrated in a bumpkin area. ( lol, for all I know, Ashville, NC is a sprawling metropolis, hahaha :D )

The reason for this is “flow”. In NYC, all the women that are spread out all over creation have to come to certain places to do certain things. Because of this, all you have to do is go to a popular shopping area or a section of town that employs a lot of attractive women, and they bring themselves to you. You actually end up with more women and a better variety in the same amount of space. This is why construction workers have a field day with catcalling in this town.

Another reason is “turnover”. There are always new chicks in this town. If you exhaust the number of chicks in one area, you start hanging out in a different area. If you hang out in Times Square, there are tons of new foreign tourists every day as well as bumpkins imported from all over the USA to come see The Capital Of The World, NYC. :D

Another reason is that New Yorkers WALK… A LOT! People that live in the country DRIVE a lot, so while they’re technically in a smaller area than what we have here, they NEVER meet each other… only passing by each other like the proverbial “ships in the night”.

So I’ll take a bunch of chicks scattered around… There’s another problem with “the sticks”. People tend to know each other. If you date like eight chicks, you can’t get away from them, because they never move from that town and they work at the general store where you have to go to buy your gasoline. In NYC, you get to start over every single night. Every night, you meet someone new and potentially exciting that you’d like to get to know more about or spend some fun times with. You don’t even have to THINK about chicks you met yesterday or last week, because there are always more for today and tomorrow. That’s one of the reasons I have the luxury of writing this blog. It doesn’t matter. No matter how many women read DatingGenius and sit there thinking “Ewwwww… I would NEVER date HIM!!! :( “, it doesn’t matter. There are always more chicks that have never heard of me, so I can do whatever I want. :D

JS: I’m going to be honest, I’m not too into dating someone 40 years older than me. Overly selective, I know, but a common enough thought that we come to the second problem with the original map: It counted all singles between the ages of 20-64.

hehehehehe Yes, this is a TREMENDOUS flaw! :D Totally agreed that a “map of singles” should make a range available to the viewer that’s relevant to that viewer’s dating tastes.

Having said that, let’s not discount the older sistaz that are keepin’ it PROPPAH and still having the fellaz tryinna TAP THAT! :D Guys like to talk a lot of yang about older women they wouldn’t kick it with, but when they meet one that’s still pretty and in tremendous physical shape… OH, and with a nice personality, intelligence & common sense!!! (winks at Grace, Jen & Annie ;) ) … All that “thinking” seems to go out the window, doesn’t it?

JS: Ladies: After your mid 40′s, you will be fighting tooth and nail for the nine or ten single men.

Gents: Single men become a rare commodity later in life, and we all know what happens then. They don’t call it Perfectly Inelastic Supply for nothing!

I think it was Rodney Dangerfield who said “I love college women. I keep getting older, they stay the same age! :D “. This is one of the problems for women. Guys in general like younger women, so the older a guy gets, the more women he finds acceptable to date or screw or whatever. The older a woman gets, the FEWER options she has as far as companionship.

Again, however, age isn’t the most important factor here. A chick could be 23, and if she falls off, physically, she’s going to have way fewer suitors than she did when she was HAWT.

JS: Gals: Do single young girls exist? Not according to math! Fact: around 1/3 of 20-24 year old women are married. Only 70% are single!

This doesn’t really matter. The word “single” just implies “available for sex”. This means that the survey is only going to show the number of women who DECLARED themselves available for sex. Just because a chick has a boyfriend or is married doesn’t mean she’s not gonna give it up, so the number of females OVERALL in an area is more important than the number who were willing to declare themselves “single” for a survey.

This is another reason why it’s better to be in NYC than in the sticks. More women = More opportunity. Period.

JS: The switchover from extra men to extra women starts at 35-39 for most big East Coast cities, but doesn’t hit New York until 40-44.

This is a very interesting statistic. I can see how the “singles map” would be misleading if it were heavily weighted with “singles” between 40 and 62 years of age. So, yes, overall, very interesting breakdown of the singles map, and “nice job”, Jonathan Soma. :D

Now… Let’s talk about reality

The fact of the matter is that numbers or no numbers, whether there are 210,820 extra single females or 15 extra single females, if you’re in the trenches and on the streets of NYC, you will see with your own eyes that there are literally PACKS of women roaming the streets with NO MEN and nothing to do with their lives other than work, shop and eat.

Go to the stores, and who’s working there? Women. Go to the colleges, and who’s studying there? Women. Walk down the street, Hang out in the Park, Get on the subway or bus, Go to Brooklyn where the hippies live…. Anywhere you go, there are just TONS of women. You literally can’t throw a rock in NYC without hitting a chick. :D

Women have no leverage in this town, because they’re expendable merely by available numbers. I took a walk this morning and passed an attractive female and told her “good morning”. She returned a begrudging “good morning” and we both went about our business. I may see her again in life and I may not. Does it matter? No. Why not? Because there are another thousand of her roaming around this town somewhere. She wasn’t unique in her attractiveness and I didn’t know anything about her as a person, so nobody cares.

This is why my “Women’s Guide to NYC Dating” is relevant regardless of the validity of that map I linked to. It’s nearly IMPOSSIBLE for a woman here to distinguish herself as unique in the normal ways that women get men all over the country and the world. There’s a girl on the next block who’s prettier than you. There’s a girl on the next block that has a better ass than you. There’s a girl on the next block that has fewer kids than you. There’s a girl on the next block that makes more money than you or dresses better than you or is better at sex than you etc etc etc.

The only way a woman’s going to stand out amongst the myriad attractive female residents of and visitors to this town is going to be by her stellar personality, so, my advice to women stands:

1) Be a nice person
2) Have interesting things to say
3) Eat when you go out to a restaurant
4) Be athletic
5) LOOK GOOD!

Thanks for the comment and the information about that post, “Ford”. Cheers! :D

~Bill

DatingGenius Category: billcammack.com/category/datinggenius
Subscribe to DG!: feeds.feedburner.com/BillCammackDatingGenius
 

Bill Cammack… Cold Lampin’ @ The White House

It’s about time I got started with this. “Rock Star” Episode 0001.

Rock Star Category billcammack.com/category/rockstar
Subscribe to Rock Star!: feeds.feedburner.com/BillCammackRockStar

People are all CRYING about the $150,000 (read: One Hundred and Fifty THOUSAND Dollars) that was reportedly spent by the Republican National Committee to update Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

Well, it’s clear to The Kid that McCain knows what’s up and that he MUST be subscribed to DatingGenius! :D Read the rest of this entry »

Bill Cammack – Hotel Sax, Chicago, IL, USA

Golf Girl TV: Season 02, Episode 02: “NYC Golf Meetup”

Formats Available: iPod (.mp4)Website: Golf Girl TV
Hosts: Patricia Hannigan and Cathleen Farr
Producer/Editor/Camera: Bill Cammack
Coordinators/Production Assistants: Sam Stahl & Ryan Chambers for blip.tv
Sponsor: Puma Golf
 

Are women funny?

My sister Liz is funny, but that’s because she’s my sister and we share superior genes. Kim will catch you out there with a slew of punchlines if you get on her nerves, FRLZ, and I think Mel’s probably pretty mentally dangerous in a snap-fest, but, overall… are women FUNNY?

I know there are female comedians, and I’ve been laughing incessantly over how I can’t tell Tina Fey apart from Sarah Palin,

but… in general… are women funny? And if so… Is there “Male Humor” and “Female Humor”?

I’m thinking about this because I watched / listened to a panel of bigwigs in the internet comedy space yesterday. After they spoke, they had a Q&A session, and my homegirl Kathryn Jones got her hands on the mic…. RUH ROHHHH!!! :D

Kathryn Jones & Bill Cammack

So, basically, Kathryn asked “Where is the content BY women and the content FOR women?” and the answer was “um, uh, um, uh, um…” hahahahaha :D Kathryn’s been asking this question ever since I met her, so as soon as I saw her get the mic, I was like AWWWWW HERE WE GO!!!!! :D

The answers made sense, business-wise, and the thing to remember is that this internet stuff is business for them, not art or entertainment. If you do “art” and nobody watches it or buys ads on your content, you get fired. If you do business, and it’s the same business over and over, you get advertising dollars and you keep your job.

Basically, they said they have a demographic and they cater to it. Business 101. If the people watching your content is GUYS, then you make more content that GUYS would like so that they tell MORE GUYS to watch your videos and you grow your community and make more money.

Rocketboom had a study done a while back, which IIRC determined that a whopping 8% of their viewership was female. Of course, that has to do with Eye Candy, but that’s a different topic. The point is… well… the point, I guess, is a question… “If 92% of your viewership is male, why cater to females at all?” or, “Why not do things that affect 92% of your viewership instead of 8%?”. That’s how I was feeling during that silent period right after Kathryn asked her question and the panelists were mentally deciding who was going to address it. :)

One panelist even said that if they were going to do female-oriented content, they would have to make a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITE! :D This and other comments that escape me right now are what got me thinking about this topic. Is there a difference between “female humor” and “male humor”? Do women (in general) get stuff that’s “funny to women” and men get stuff that’s “funny to men”?

Assuming that’s the case… In this era of niche marketing, there’s no “space” for the combination of “male and female humor”. Doing stuff to attract women will “turn off” male viewers, taking away from “the bottom line”. The question becomes whether attempting to increase the low percentage of female viewers will decrease the number of male viewers to the point that it wasn’t worth it in the first place.

The moderator had the solution… technically… which was to bring in female content creators to make videos specifically geared towards a female audience. However, this fit EXACTLY into the other two theories, which were basically “We’re going to cater to what our demographic is” and “If we’re going to ‘add’ females, we need to make a completely different site”.

On a different topic, yet the same, in a way… I ran into the same issue with my DatingGenius blog. Being a guy, I can blog all day and all night about tricks and tips for “getting girls”. It’s easy to create content for males, because all guys want to know is how to get around the artificial obstacles women throw up which prevent / delay guys from getting laid. It’s not so easy for me to create content for women, because I have to reverse-engineer it. I think to myself “What would *I* do to them?” and then figure out their defense against me and write it. The only other way I get female-oriented material is through actual discussions with my myriad homegirls and selecting common issues that they have, like why guys catcall.

Thinking about this question in terms of my own content, it’s clear to me that if I gave a damn about having female-oriented content and I knew damned well that my mind didn’t generate this stuff on its own, I would need to bring in someone who understands “female comedy” to handle that part of my business for me. This is why it was funny to hear “um, uh, um…” when Kathryn brought up the same topic she always brings up :D , because you would think that if I’VE heard the question a million times, THEY would have heard the question a BILLION times and done something about it by now.

However… Being that internet video is about “the bottom line”, viewership, eyeballs, revenue sharing, CPM, CPC etc etc etc, women may just have to wait until they’re seen as a “market” worth throwing funds at…. haha Wait… I forgot something. :D

Assuming that it’s NOT the case that there’s “male humor” and “female humor”, there should be a crossover. You should be able to make comedy shows by females that males flock to (other than because they think she looks good and don’t give a damn what she’s saying anyway) and comedy shows by males that increase the female presence in your demographic surveys.

The whole idea may be self-fulfilling. We can’t get female numbers up higher than blah blah percent, so why bother catering to them? Meanwhile, not catering to them doesn’t increase your female viewership past those traditional percentages.

I have no idea and totally don’t care what my demos are for DatingGenius. I try to mix it up and have something for tha fellaz AND tha ladiez! Then again, DG isn’t a business. It’s something I do for kicks. If I were doing it for money, haha, I might be in the same boat with the panelists, saying essentially “Our statistics haven’t show that the sector you’re asking about is worth us wasting our production money on, due to lack of ROI”.

So maybe it doesn’t matter whether women are funny or not. Even if they WERE, they’re not going to see any light unless businesses can figure out ways to make money off of them. Seems to me like a void waiting to be filled by women that are willing to create their own content, encode, post, distribute and market it THEMSELVES and take advantage while the currently established sites get caught slippin’.

~Bill

Social Media Category: billcammack.com/category/social-media/
Subscribe to SM!: feeds.feedburner.com/BillCammackSocialMedia