Comments (12)

  1. tobint says:

    Personally, the further I am from Jon Stewart, the better.   I don’t know that having ties to most "unfunny" comic makes us cool, but I suppose we do a lot of things that are unpoppular with large groups of consumers: http://www.microsoft.com/citizenship/diversity/inside/dac/gleam.asp

    Is it a wonder our stock price goes down when we divide our audience with statements, stances and endorsements like this?

  2. HeatherLeigh says:

    Yeah, well sometimes taking a stand on civil rights is unpopular. Of course that is my personal opinion and I sure feel lucky to have the right speak it. You do something, some people are going to be upset; you don’t do something, some people are going to be upset. If you crack the code on ensuring that all people are happy all of the time, please let me know.  ; )

    And seriously, if the point of the comment was to be anti-gay, please do that elsewhere. I don’t welcome that on my blog.

    I suppose comedy is subjective (proof: Jim Carey, not funny in my opinion). Of course, by commenting on my blog post, you are one degree closer to Jon Stewart…mwahahahah ; )

    The whole point of advertising/marketing is to appeal to a target audience, not necessarily everybody. I have no doubt that Demetri has strong appeal in a certain demographic (which I doubt I am part of), though I do wish he’d get a haircut. I also think that the Apple-guy in the Mac ads looks like he smells like dirty socks (by the way, the PC guy is also on The Daily Show…I forget his name).

    I don’t even know if the report of the deal is true.

  3. tobint says:

    I never intend any of my comments to be anti-<insert favorite group here>.  I think you’d find that to be the case if you ask anyone that knows me.  I treat my circle of friends like some people treat their pok-e-mon cards — I collect them all.  While that’s my _personal view_, I tend to hold a different standard for companies. I wish they would hold less political stands and let the people who want to "argue" do it amongst themselves.  A multi-billion dollar company holding a viewpoint that matches wih mine may help me win a polical battle today, but lose one tomorrow.  In that instance, we end up back where we were years ago — with monetary backing being the ultimate factor in what measures pass and what don’t pass.  In otherwords the "land owners" will always have the upper hand on the rest.  

    However, the blog is your own opinion an not neccessarily a corporate one, so I suppose I’m being a bit harsh to that end.  It just so happens that I’ve read this on a particularly day of "popular intollerance" that has me on edge.

  4. HeatherLeigh says:

    I come from a family where I am definitely the minority, philosophically speaking. I’m not sure that any of them would find Jon Stewart that funny either though I tend to find that he makes fun of everyone. And I don’t find Demetri’s work to be very political. I haven’t heard him do stand-up though.

    I get your point on the corporations involved in political issues thing, but I feel that when it comes to workplace discrimination and civil rights, they have to. I used to feel the same way you do (not wanting companies to take a position either way) but I changed my mind over the last year or so. Hey, we devote a lot of money to education and I don’t have kids, but I can’t say that it’s wrong for us to be supportive of education.

    Deep down, in my gut, I would rather be just than be rich…if I had to choose, of course. Because I’d rather be both…and attractive too. And popular.

  5. Shahar says:

    <<<

    I don’t know that having ties to most "unfunny" comic makes us cool, but I suppose we do a lot of things that are unpoppular with large groups of consumers:

    >>>

    And since comedy and sense of humor are, for the most part, a very diversified thing, we should never ever ever have ties to comedians – any comedian.

    Come to think about it, Art is very personal too and can be controversial, right? Lets not have any ties to Art either.

    Heck, some charities can be controversial (be them gay rights organizations or evangelical christians movements) – lets axe the Microsoft matching campaighn.

  6. tobint says:

    As tolerant as Microsoft claims to be, it does discriminate in its charitable donation campaign — you can give to a gay rights organization but not an evangelical christian one.  Tolerance, it seems, is a one way street.

  7. HeatherLeigh says:

    Shahar- I’m going to assume you are being sarcastic. I hate to admit but I have a hard time telling these days without those stupid little emoticon things I used to hate so much.

    Tobin-you might want to check the legal definition of discrimination. Legally, sexual orientation is a protected class. You also might want to take some time to research Microsoft’s relationship with the United Way. You really seem to have an agenda here. Might I gently and respectfully suggest that you take it up on your blog rather than mine? That’s not really what this blog post was about and as much fun as it would be for me to argue with you based on my own personal beliefs, I decline to do so strictly so as not to inspire divisiveness here.

    You are welcome to your opinion but I believe I’ve made it pretty clear that my blog is not open territory for religious or political debate. You’ve managed to hit both topics in one post.  

  8. Tobin says:

    I didn’t mention legal discrimination at all.   In fact the regular definition of "discriminate" holds true in my statement : "to make a distinction" is one such plain definition, and as it was intended in the post.  We aren’t talking politics as played out in corporations such as Microsoft.  

    I find it hard to believe that you can bring up Jon Stewart but shy away from politics, but none-the-less, if that’s what you want.  People with "agendas" typically don’t encourage debate.  Instead they like to get their point out and silence all others.  With that in mind I’ve got no problem taking the "discussion" elsewhere and leaving the "agendas" here.

  9. tobint says:

    I wasn’t talking in legal terms at all. I’m talking about the plain old definition of discriminate:  "to make a distinction".  I think I’ll pass on the research as I’m already all too familiar with both discrimination law and Microsoft’s relationships with quasi-charities.

    I started off by mearly pointing out that Jon Stewart doesn’t make anyone cool in the minds of a large audience.  I pointed to another very unpopular stand by Microsoft that also causes this same division.  I hadn’t attacked anyone, or any cause: Only the idea that corporations attach themselves to politics and/or political people.

    With that in mind, I don’t know how you can bring a political hack like Jon Stewart onto your blog and expect to avoid political commentary.    Agendas are one sided lists of bullet points spoken by one side while silencing the other.  I encouraged discussion on the very topic you posted about (without personal attacks) which goes directly against the idea of an agenda.  

    That said, its blog, so I’ll move along.  I sincerely appologize if you took this as a personal attack.

  10. Gabe J says:

    I always thought that yall were cool.

    Also, I started to count the degrees of separation between myself and John Stewart, and fell off at arround 300 links, damn shame, I need to beet a better class of people.

    Come to my site.

  11. Paul says:

    Since the subject matter was "coolness", I’ll stick to that.

    First of all, cool does not mean popular.  In fact, usually the coolest things are the most unpopular at the time they are cool.  As soon as they get popular, they aren’t cool anymore, by definition.  Which is why Google is getting a little less cool, and Microsoft may be getting its mojo back by default (if you are uncool long enough, then suddenly you can be cool again).

    Now, with respect to Jon Stewart, he was the ultimate in cool a few years back before the references to him on "Sex in the City" cast him in a new ‘must see’ light.  So, he got popular, which means by definition, he was no longer cool, but I don’t care because I like him anyway.  I’ve always liked dry satire and comedy of the absurd.  On the other hand, Jon can be very geeky, but hey, I’ve heard that geeks can be cool too.  So, he’s been uncool long enough that it’s possible he’s getting cool again.

    Demetri, on the other hand, is tres cool.  He is very anti-conservative (how outre can you get), and mocking of all things popular, which should make him unpopular, which means he has extraordinary qualifications to make him cool.  In this regard, the fact that he seems to evoke a strong yechhhh among some is the strongest positive indicator.  The question is, would he stay cool if he was somehow associated with Microsoft?

    Regardless, the ultimate in uncool is to be bereft of sense of humor.  On that score, being cool or not may depend more on how representative certain commenters are of the larger body politic that is Redmond.

    So, it comes down to whether the rumors are true.  If getting Demetri means ditching dinosaurs, then MS may get superhot cool in my books.

    http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/06/07/demetri-martin-signs-deals-with-microsoft-and-comedy-central/

    Truly, whether Demetri adds a sheen of cool to Microsoft will depend on how heavily marketing tries to control/censor what he says.  If he has creative freedom to be himself, then you may indeed be the hottest cool property in town.  A trendspotting spot which mocks Vista as the coolest trend could be quite funny, especially if Microsoft was cool enough to let him do it.  I’m certainly hoping so, because I bought a ton of stock at $22.

  12. HeatherLeigh says:

    Here’s more on The Daily Shows  correspondents’ previous work with Microsoft:

    http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/104151.asp?source=rss

    I forgot about the Ed Helms peice…didn’t know about the others.