Institutionalized Personalities

Let’s discuss self-oppressing personalities…

The best way to defeat people is to convince them that they’re worthless.

This is because once they believe this about themselves, they continually exhibit lowlife behavior because they see themselves AS lowlives instead of regular human beings.

Then they turn around and complain that people are treating them LIKE lowlives and descend even further into self-defeating behavior.

Nobody is better at oppressing you than you are.

If you take someone out of the game without breaking their spirit, they can always get back in the game.

There’s a difference between LOSING and BEING A LOSER.

Winners lose all the time, unless they’re playing a game that’s too easy for them or against people that aren’t any competition for them whatsoever.

Losers lose and then reinforce their own belief that they were SUPPOSED to lose because they ARE losers.

If you can get people who should be winners to self-define as losers, your job is done and they’ll wipe themselves out. Continue reading “Institutionalized Personalities”

Can “Talent” Be Blamed For Show “Failure”?

This is a response to Tyme White‘s article: “Experienced vs. inexperienced ‘advice'”, which was a response to my article, “Personal Brand? No Crossover”.

@Tyme: Good points.

First of all, I was specifically talking about internet shows. Actually, FIRST OF ALL, no… I don’t have ANY experience with hiring ANYBODY to be the figurehead or “face” of a show. What I *DO* have experience with is watching a show and determining whether a) it’s good, b) it sucks because of the production (technical issues), c) it sucks because of the script-writing, d) it sucks because the face of the show is entirely talentless, or e) EVERYTHING about the show sucks.

Bill CammackGranted… That MAY be because I’m an editor AND a show producer.

I wouldn’t know what the average joe/josepine takes away from looking at a show that “fails” (whatever that means in the context of this discussion). All I can do is ‘project’ and believe that distinctions are made between whether the show a) wasn’t good, and it’s the talent’s fault, b) wasn’t good, and it’s NOT the talent’s fault, or c) WAS GOOD, but got shut down for other reasons (or didn’t make money or didn’t grow it’s audience… whatever you’re defining as a “failed” show).

For instance, we just received news that MobLogic was shut down. According to articles on the net, Lindsay Campbell is still an employee of CBS. Before MobLogic was cancelled, they were outputting sporadically compared to the regular schedule they were using when they first started.

Without “inside information” from “the horse’s mouth”, there’s no telling what the reason was for the shutdown. It just so happens that WallStrip was shut down on the same day, apparently. Let’s say the average person isn’t going to search for articles about WHY a show got cancelled, and all they know is that it was here today and gone tomorrow.

What that person’s going to take away from the show, as far as the “face” of the show, is the sum of their experiences from watching her. They either liked her style, didn’t like her style, or felt she was inconsistently good/bad. If she gets selected for a new show, that sentiment is going to drive whether that viewer goes “YAAY!” or “oh no. She got ANOTHER show? :/”. That’s what the talent has to carry forward, their own performance. Unless the public feels that the show “failed” because the talent sucked, the ending of a show, which as you mention, is the BUSINESS side of things has nothing to do with the ENTERTAINMENT VALUE they received from the talent.

Continue reading “Can “Talent” Be Blamed For Show “Failure”?”