Advertising Tiger

CNN Money reports today that, while Tiger is all over TV, his commercials appear to be on hiatus.

No surprise, there. Also no surprise to me will be the reports we'll read in a few weeks when the furor about his alleged affairs dies down(presuming female servers, hostesses, first grade teachers, cab drivers, ToysRUs cashiers, subway token takers, nursing home residents, the female half of the White House gate crashers, and Nancy Pelosi don't all announce they had affairs with him).

Gosh, I hope not that ditzy gate crasher person. But she would figure, wouldn't she? Matt Drudge should begin investigating.

But in a few weeks when all of this is a fond memory, the ads will return. Slowly at first, perhaps in a few golf tournaments.

And he won't lose a single advertiser.

Why? Come on. You know the answer as well as I do!

The commercial endorsement decisions are undoubtedly all made by wealthy white males who know that their target audience is made up of other males with sizeable disposable incomes and every single one of them, at one time or another, has (a) fantasized about having an affair and (b) winced at the suggestion that Tiger may have "gotten caught" and possibly wounded in the line of duty.

Of course if Tiger's lovely wife decides to leave him, take the kids and nail him in the wallet on her way out the door in very public fashion . . .he might take a PR hit. But only briefly.

I can't predict what will happen to his golf game.

Then again, do we really care?

Arrogance, Thy Name Is MWA

Just when I was considering rejoining Mystery Writers of America comes an action I will brand as one of the most arrogant from a truly arrogant organization. Following in the footsteps of Romance Writers of America which took the respected Harlequin Publishing off their "approved list," Publisher's Weekly reports MWA now has done the same thing. Reason being: Harlequin had the audacity to start a self-published imprint.

According to PW, "By de-listing Harlequin, MWA is barring all Harlequin authors from using their Harlequin books as a basis for active status membership. No Harlequin book will be eligible for Edgar Award consideration, although books published by Harlequin under contracts signed before December 2, 2009 may still be the basis for membership and will still be eligible for Edgar consideration."

Unfortunately, MWA and RWA seem to believe that they are protectors of the traditionally published novel and that, by their actions, they will defeat the self-publishing movement.

It's shameful to see two wrtiters' organizations that have done so much for their genres in the past, not to mention for aspiring authors, fall victim to fear of the self-published.

Fighting Movie Pirates

After my rant the other day about copyright infringement and movie piracy, my buddy Dave told me about a new system in use in some theatres to deter the use of video cameras to record movies from the big screen.

I noted yesterday that it is a significant problem for the movie industry...a 3.5 billion dollar problem, in fact, as estimated by the Motion Picture Association of America.

The new gadget emits a pattern of infrared light across the screen which cannot be seen by the human eye and doesn't affect the movie being shown. It's designed to interupt the infrared signal used by video cameras, in some cases obscuring the video recording and making it unusable for pirated distribution.

A couple of years ago, Warner Brothers reportedly tried a different tack: hiring a security company to shoot video of audiences in theatres during the first week of release of their films. Whether that did any good has not been reported.

The MPAA also filmed a number of Public Service Announcements like this one with actor Jack Black, aimed at young would-be movie pirates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA&feature=player_embedded

Call me crazy but I think the potential of being charged with a felony, either in state court or federally, would be enough to warn people off. Apparently not.

Video a Movie---Get 3 Years in Prison

Here's something to think about. According to the Sun-Times this morning, a 22-year-old Chicago woman could face three years in prison for taping part of the new Twilight movie in a Rosemont theatre.

The Sun-Times reports she was arrested, and jailed for two nights until she could appear in bond court, for the offense of Criminal Use of a Motion Picture Exhibition. It's a Class 4 felony in Illinois and also an Intellectual Property crime under federal law.

The woman in this case claims she didn't intend to video the movie but was shooting her sister's birthday celebration while trying out a new camera. The Sun-Times reports police found about three minutes of video on the camera, including trailer footage.

Maybe she didn't intend to do anything with what she shot other than show her friends. Maybe she didn't plan to put any of the Twilight film up online, say on YouTube for example. Maybe her intentions were, indeed, innocent.

Maybe.

But, according to the Library of Congress,in an article written to assess the reason for federal legislation, "This misuse of camcorders is a significant factor in the estimated $3.5 billion in annual losses the movie industry suffers because of hard-goods piracy."

The Library of Congress article continues, "Causing greater financial harm, these camcorded versions are posted on the Internet through certain peer-to-peer networks and made available for millions of users to download. According to studies by the Motion Picture Association of America (`MPAA'), camcorded versions of movies in theatrical release account for more than 90 percent of the first copies of motion pictures illegally distributed on the Internet."

My guess is the Chicago woman will be allowed to plea-bargain the charge down to a misdemeanor but the motion picture industry is taking a tough stance against this kind of crime. They may insist that prosecutors take the case to trial. The evidence will be the video she shot...how much of the movie and the trailer she captured.

If convicted, will she spend time in prison? Probably not. Will she have to pay a fine? Undoubtedly. In fact, if she's found guilty, I hope she has to pay until it hurts.

Bottom line: if you steal any copyrighted work, be it the manual I prepared for a college class I taught several years ago (I caught the university planning to use it for another class taught by someone else), a fiction novel, an entire textbook "because it's so expensive" to buy, or video of a first-run movie, it is no more ethical than stealing from a store.

It is theft. It's a crime. And there should be a significant and very public punishment.

Fear of the Self-Published Part Two

I'm using the word "fear" in the title of this two-blog series because of several encounters I've had with traditionally published authors since my first book, Deader by the Lake, was released five years ago.

I self-published "Deader" and sold, according to my publisher who pays me royalties, about three-thousand copies. Doing so lead to a deal with a traditional publisher for my second book, "Every Secret Crime."

A number of my friends who write mysteries suggested that self-publishing was not the way to go. One acquaintance took it further and interceded with two booksellers. Right in front of me, at a conference, she made sure they knew my book was self-published to eliminate any possibility they would handle it. And they did not. Another told me that "self-published writers steal our readers." A handful of reviewers and mystery magazine owners refused to even consider "Deader" for reviews because, as they told me, they would face backlash from traditional publishers and other authors for even mentioning a self-published work. I give kudos to Connie Fletcher, a contributor to Booklist, who not only published a review about "Deader" but wrote a fine feature piece about me. She was one of the few.

Prejudice against the self-published author is real. Writers' organizations refuse to grant full membership to the self-published. Many workshop organizers refuse to allow self-published authors to sit on panels, make presentations or even have their books sold on site. Of course these same groups have no problem taking a self-published author's money if they choose to join as an "associate" member or attend the conference... but not promote their work.

It's unfortunate that the same people who would scream about censorship and other sorts of prejudice, practice it themselves.

I acknowledge that many self-published books are not worth reading. But I strongly believe there are authors who, with some nurturing by their traditionally published peers, could become successful.

Why couldn't organizations like Mystery Writers of America or Sisters in Crime establish some guidelines that would allow self-published authors to receive full benefits? Workshop organizers could follow the same kind of rules in selecting speakers from among the self-published. Say, for example, the author sells x number of books in a given year, or if a panel of select reviewers/editors agrees there is merit to the work. How about establishing mentoring groups within the writers' organizations to reach out to the self-published to encourage rather than turn-away? How about holding sessions at conferences to target the self-published and give them a chance to shine...if their work can stand up to professional scrutiny first?

I can't tell you how frustrating it was to try and attend a movie pitch session in Hollywood, sponsored by Sisters in Crime a couple of years ago. For an organization that did not appear to distinguish between traditionally published and self-published in soliciting members, it was very quick to cross my name off the list for the session...and for several other events that year that might have lead to better sales for me. Some members of the group were obviously more equal than others. Not that any of the attendees came away with option checks in their pockets!

Prejudice is self-defeating. But, then again, the insecure always feel better when they have someone else to kick around.

Fear of the Self Published Part One

As many of you know, I self-published my first book, Deader by the Lake. It was certainly an education for me. I found that many conventionally published authors are quite fearful of those who don't take the usual route to get their work before their readers and the fallout from that fear afflicts not only author "professional" groups but bookstore owners and reviewers.

Now comes the case of "Harlequin Horizons," an imprint of the respected romance publisher. Harlequin joined forces with Author Solutions, a self-publishing house, to create the new division but now, as reported in Publishers Weekly, has changed the name of the imprint after criticism from several author groups. "Harlequin Horizons" is no more...the name now being DellArt Press. According to PW, "There is no mention of Harlequin on DellArte’s Web site."

From the Romance Writers Association to the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers to the old-line Mystery Writers of America, author groups that were started by, and continue to have a majority membership of, conventionally published authors are fighting to make certain self-published authors are not given respect or the opportunity to join as full members or enter contests or take part in events which would help them sell their work.

Even the Sisters in Crime organization which claimed to have no prejudice against self-published authors when I was a member several years ago made certain I could not attend a Hollywood pitch session where I would have had the opportunity to network with producers and other studio officials.

MWA made certain I could not hold any office with the organization while I was self-published. Other writers groups and the officials of a number of writers workshops make it clear that only authors who have been conventionally published may speak or sit on panels for those workshops. Some groups, including MWA, have lists of "acceptable publishers" and if a writer was not handled by those houses, they are not considered for full membership in the group.

It is easy to self-publish a book. You write a check and, in a matter of weeks, you will have a bound volume of your work. Most self-publishing houses require no copy or line-editing. They don't even mandate that authors use spell check. There is no requirement for reasonable structure or plotting and no vetting for truth in non-fiction self-published books.

In point of fact, much of the work produced by self-published authors is crap.

Much, but not all. And there are ways writers groups could work with self-published authors to help and not hinder them.

More on that in my next post.

The Absurdity of Hate

A well-educated Christian friend of mine, who also happens to be a conservative talk-show host, wrote this on his Facebook page yesterday: "I don't know if I like the idea of the President sending you to jail if you don't buy into his healthcare policy."

He likes to make thought-provoking statements so I laughed it off until I read the ABC News interview with President Obama that was apparently what sent my friend and many of his conservative colleagues into a tizzy.

ABC's Jake Tapper sat down for an exclusive chat with the President regarding the health care bill. During that session, the President discussed possible penalties that should be paid by people who choose not to buy health insurance. This is the comment the President made as noted on ABC's website:

"What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.”

Asked if that penalty should include jail time, ABC quotes the President as responding that he doesn't think the jail issue is the "biggest question" Congress is facing right now.

It was a three-second give and take during a much larger Q and A on the health care issue yet many commentators have seized on it the way my friend did, emphasizing what the President did not say. Obama didn't call for jail. He called for penalties. And he excepted those who are hardship cases. In fact, he very much sounded to me like someone unwilling to go to the jail time option.

Similarly, the President hasn't proposed one gun control measure, yet the NRA and other groups fired up the gun folks after his election to the point that gun prices exploded and demand for ammunition so far exceeded supply that there were shortages. He hasn't proposed any abortion bill, even emphasized to ABC that he doesn't want anyone trying to change the status quo of no public funding for abortions with the health care bill, yet people at my church have told me they hate him because he supports the murder of children. These are devout Christians using the word "hate."

And that, to me, is the bottom line. Those who hate this President hate him personally. They don't just hate his policies or proposals. They eagerly pounce on any morsel of a statement he makes and rip it apart like wild dogs in a feeding frenzy. Their fervor is a murderous obsession. They are terrified of him, everything he does and what he "might" do.

I disagreed with previous Administrations on a number of issues. I have never hated any President. I distrust politicians. I don't hate them. Rapists, pedophiles and those who manipulate the criminal justice system to escape punishment for capital crimes, deserve our venom. Hatred of an Administration's policies? If that's your passion, certainly. Hatred for the person of the President? Absolutely not. That's where many ultra-conservatives cross the line. Not only that, they fear-monger, hoping to whip others into the same frenzy.

Hating someone for having beliefs different from yours, and the obstructionist thinking that has resulted from that hate, is absurd.

Hatred breeds destruction. Is that where we're headed?