Book Review: Writing the Killer Treatment: Selling Your Story Without a Script (Paperback)
************************************************
In talking about wine styles, and why and when they change, I usually turn to the analogies of popular music or fashion. I ask people to walk into their closet and examine their wardrobe, and think about when and why they bought a shirt or jacket, and which are their favorite items, or the ones they never wear.

Today I couldn't help but think about how pop icon Michael Jackson influenced the entertainment world. No matter what you thought about his curious persona or mercurial career, the one white glove or moon walk dance, there’s no mistaking his lasting legacy. His music is an extraordinary body of work. Jackson had many imitators, but no one could match his musical achievements. They invite comparisons to the likes of Elvis Presley or the Beatles.
Granted, wine styles can't and don't change with the fluidity of pop music, hemlines or pinstripes. Wine is agriculture. Changes in style are by nature more gradual. But styles do change, and of course, and so do tastes. The two go hand in hand. What may have been hot last year isn't now. My taste for collecting different kinds of wines has ranged from impulsive to disciplined, but usually well in between those extremes.
With wine, conversation about changing styles often revolves around how wines age. When readers describe drinking a 30-year-old Mayacamas orHeitz or Louis Martini Cabernet, they wonder why winemakers stopped making those kinds of wines, and more to the point, they wonder whether the modern versions will endure as those have.
Truth is, it's unclear at both ends of the equation. Few winemakers still favor the styles of the aforementioned wines, and it's anyone's guess as to how long or well today's stars will shine.
If you asked Bob Travers why his 1974 Mayacamas aged so gloriously, I'm sure he'd say it was the vineyard and the year more so than any winemaking magic in the cellar. I'm sure, too, that he had a good idea that the '74 vintage was special early on, as indeed it was. But I’m not sure he could offer greater insight into any other specifics aside from the results: it had to be a great year since the proof is in the bottle. Time reveals the truth with older wines.
For whatever reason, the style of the 1970s Napa Cabernets ran its course. New vineyards were planted, old ones reconfigured, the number of brands proliferated and winemakers aimed not only for a different style (i.e. riper flavors and gentler tannins) but ways to differentiate their wines from an ever-growing multitude of offerings. For example, most of the great Cabernets of the 1960s and 1970s were 100 percent Cabernet. Today it's rare to find such a wine.
For all the glory of the iconic wines of their era, people forget that there were far more that lacked complexity, charm, and texture and didn't evolve in such a magnificent fashion.
Of course, our tastes have changed, too. There was a time when people who bought Napa Cabernet routinely aged the wines, believing both that the harder tannins of the era needed time to soften but also that the wines would get better. The hard tannins didn't soften, and most of the wines didn't gain.
We wine drinkers wanted and expected more from our wines – more depth, flavor, balance, texture and complexity – and perhaps we were less patient, wanting to drink and enjoy our wines in their youth rather than cellar them and miss the fruit purity of an infant wine.
Today with perhaps 800 individual bottlings of Napa Cabernet, it's no wonder there are both so many different styles and such a great emphasis on place. Yet it's curious how similar many of those wines are. For every glorious Bryant or Lewis Cabernet, there are many imitators who simply can't achieve the success of that style. Do we have too many wines made in that style? I think so. And that is changing.
Today's wines are better made, more complex, better balanced and they give us more of everything--perhaps most obviously immediate gratification. I believe that many of today's wines will age well, but many others won't, just like in years gone by.
Judgment day is coming for many modern-style wines, and each of us will have to ask ourselves if the wines met our expectations.
http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Blogs/Blog_Detail/0,4211,2611,00.html?CMP=OTC-RSS
Comments [0]
************************************************

Comments [0]
************************************************
Comments [0]
************************************************
Comments [0]
************************************************
It’s ‘official’; big shot CEOs are social media slackers. The hot news comes straight from ÜBERCEO, who says it conducted research on the topic for the past few weeks and has found that there’s little chance you’ll ever get to exchange pokes and tweets with Fortune 100 CEOs for the time being. Here’s the ‘miserable level of engagement’ ÜBERCEO has uncovered:
- Only two CEOs have Twitter accounts.
- 13 CEOs have LinkedIn profiles, and of those only three have more than 10 connections.
- 81% of CEOs don’t have a personal Facebook page.
- Three quarters of the CEOs have some kind of Wikipedia entry, but nearly a third of those have limited or outdated information.
- Not one Fortune 100 CEO has a blog.
Quite frankly, I think this is actually a good thing. Top execs of Fortune 100 companies in my view can do much more harm to themselves and the organizations they represent using social media the wrong way, and I haven’t seen that many CEOs of any size and type of company do it the right way. It’s what social media gurus and other experts are there for!
Thank God, I’ve never had to work for a Fortune 100 company, but if ever do I’ll be damned if I’m going to befriend and send Zombie bites to the head honcho on Facebook or send him or her direct messages over Twitter if I’m looking for a raise.
Comments [0]
************************************************
Countless books advise how to build your personal brand. Michael Jackson was so unique that he cannot realistically serve as anyone's role model in that effort. Yet Jackson was unquestionably a brand icon and there are lessons to be learned. Here are the top ten factors that explain his icon status.
Start early. Michael began entertaining at the age of four. His career as the uniquely young lead singer in The Jackson Five began with the Motown label at the age of 10. National recognition came with his appearance on the Ed Sullivan show.
Let go. Jackson went solo in 1972 at the age of 13. As with Diana Ross and the Supremes, there came a point where the group constrained rather than aided the further development of his talent.
Break out. Jackson was a multidimensional entertainer. His expert dancing could be showcased via the new medium of music videos. MTV and Jackson rose in tandem when MTV premiered the Jackson video "Thriller" in 1982 from the album of the same name. The album went on to sell over 100 million copies.
Get help. Jackson benefited from his long-term professional relationship with producer and songwriter Quincy Jones. He often acknowledged the inspiration he received from James Brown, Diana Ross and other artists.
Be visible. All memorable brands have their unique visual trademarks. Jackson understood brand image and how to build it with his fans. The moonwalk that we could all try to imitate. The glove. The uniform. Neverland.
Go global. Jackson's music and videos easily transcended national boundaries, as well as race, age and gender. "We Are the World", written by Jackson and Lionel Ritchie in 1985, cemented his global appeal. Jackson sold almost half his 750 million titles outside the United States.
Crown yourself. Elvis was already "The King", so Jackson christened himself "The King of Pop." The professional contributions--including 13 Grammies--were so substantial that the moniker stuck. The flawed personal life - the lawsuits, the failed marriages, and the Wacko Jacko incidents like dangling his child from a Berlin hotel balcony - chipped away at Jackson's professional brand equity but never eroded it.
Be vulnerable. We cannot relate to icons without imperfections. Jackson was quirky, eccentric, mysterious. For all his wealth and professional excellence, he was - perhaps understandably - flawed, misguided, and sad, but none would say unkind.
Give back. Denied a normal childhood, Jackson was amazingly generous to disadvantaged children. Some 39 charities benefited significantly from his support. He also collaborated on Live Aid with other entertainers.
Die young. The sold-out 50 concert tour of Europe to start next month will never happen. The likelihood of a Jackson comeback will forever be debated. Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe James Dean, and now Michael Jackson - all leave to our imagination thoughts of what might have been. When a brand icon is torn from us prematurely, unexpectedly, it figures even larger in our collective memory.
Comments [0]
Comments [0]
************************************************
Comments [0]
Comments [0]
Comments [0]