I’m breaking my recent blog silence to announce that the short film I made a couple years ago with the incomparable Nick Weiss has been honored by Boston University’s Redstone Film Festival West as this year’s Best Alumni Film.  The Redstone is BU’s annual film festival that celebrates the best student films of the year.  It is funded by Sumner Redstone, the head of Viacom.  My graduate thesis film, Disturbing Leonard, had the honor of winning the Redstone West several years ago, so I was already a big fan of the festival.  Now, I am very excited to be going back again as an honoree–AND very excited to see my short, that was originally intended for the web, on the big screen in front of an audience.  It will be screened at the Academy’s Linwood Dunn Theater at the Pickford Center for Motion Picture Study in Los Angeles this coming Friday, March 30 at 7:30.  For more information, click here.

If you can’t make the screening and haven’t seen the film yet, you can find it on the film page of my website.  To read a story about how this film came to be, click here.

I’m sure I will blog again.  Perhaps when my frustration with politics becomes too great for me to keep my mouth shut, perhaps when there is important news to be spread… But for now, there simply isn’t the time.  This little guy keeps me too busy.  I’m doing my writing during naptimes and once he’s asleep for the night.  Blogging doesn’t enter into the realm of priorities.

Politics-wise, we are living in bizarro world at the moment.  Much to say, but no time to say it.  I will share one link for now, which is a dispatch from the Borowitz Report that is all too familiar to anyone who has read my book (and thanks to you all for sharing this link with me).

Finally, a reminder (warning: book plug approaching) that during this politically charged holiday season, you should consider giving your loved ones the gift of reading, specifically the gift of political satire, more specifically, The Scandal Plan, which you can now purchase in paperback for $1.30 (yes, $1.30! That’s with free shipping!) on Amazon (click to purchase).

A happy holidays to you all.  I’ll close with a couple more pics of what I’ve been up to lately.

THE CATCHPHRASE EVERY DEMOCRAT SHOULD BE USING

Republicans are good at slogans. They are good at catchphrases. They are good at simplicity.

We Democrats are not.

We don’t have a Roger Ailes or a Grover Norquist coordinating our message, so we rarely speak with the same voice. It is no wonder that our party consistently underperforms in its fight to control the political narrative.

We can change that now. This is our moment to craft a winning message and a winning strategy for 2012 and beyond. Here’s how I would do it. It starts with a simple catchphrase. Are you ready?

The Republican War On The Middle Class

I know I’m not the first one to use this phrase, but it’s time we ALL started using it. Say it again with me:

The Republican War On The Middle Class

Now let’s say it a million times until it sticks. And don’t just say it because it’s a simple clean message, don’t just say it because it’s good strategy—say it because it’s the truth.

Historically, our party has shied away from such hyperbolic catchphrases because we don’t like to stray too far from the truth. I suffer from this same reluctance myself. I will stop mid-thought and scold myself, saying, “Let’s be fair. You know that Republicans don’t actually hate middle class Americans; they just happen to pursue misguided policies that unintentionally hurt them.”

But this type of rhetoric will get Democrats nowhere, and now is not the time to mince words. I may not INTEND to kill someone, but if I draw a gun and pull the trigger, I’m still a murderer. By this same logic, while Republicans may not INTEND to screw over the middle class, if their policies are designed to enrich millionaires and corporations while cutting the pay, benefits, bargaining rights, safety nets, and social services enjoyed by the middle class, they have effectively declared a:

Republican War On The Middle Class

Now, here’s the important part: sticking to our guns. Usually, when I see a Democrat get close to using a phrase like “The Republican War On The Middle Class,” he or she is slapped with the following Republican counter-argument:

“Here go those Democrats again. Playing class warfare!”

… to which the Democrat in question usually cowers, steps back, and waters down his rhetoric. HUGE MISTAKE! Here’s the conversation I want to see:

SEAN HANNITY: You sound like a typical Democrat, always playing class warfare.

DEMOCRAT: Exactly! Because it IS class warfare! This is a Republican War On The Middle Class! I wouldn’t make this accusation except for the simple fact that I have eyes and I can see! What sort of country do we live in where rich corporate criminals can nearly bankrupt our financial system and the middle class gets asked to foot the bill? What sort of country do we live in where teachers—of all people—are being called greedy fat cats for wanting the right to bargain as a group?

SEAN HANNITY: But collective—

DEMOCRAT: (interrupting) Let’s be clear. We are not in an economic crisis because of the salaries we pay teachers or because public employees have decent pension plans. We are not in an economic crisis because of PBS or the EPA or Head Start or community health centers or heating assistance for the poor or Pell grants or housing vouchers for homeless vets. All these things are unrelated.

(and here’s the slogan to go with the catchphrase:)

… Republicans are exploiting the financial crisis to attack programs that help the middle class and the poor—even though these programs have nothing to do with the cause OR solutions to the problems at hand.

These attacks are all just a part of The Republican War On The Middle Class.

HANNITY: You keep using that phrase, but I don’t think it’s fair.

DEMOCRAT: Fair? Is it fair that the wealthiest 400 American citizens have more money than half of the entire U.S. population combined? Is it fair that the middle class in this country keeps shrinking even as the rich get richer?

(you can insert your own rant here, but this is how I’d proceed…)

Sean, “fair” would be attacking the issues that caused our financial meltdown: tax cuts we didn’t pay for, a war we didn’t pay for, and the financial deregulation that led to our housing meltdown. And yet your Republicans drag their feet on regulating Wall Street, they drag their feet on reducing military spending, and they INSIST on giving more free tax money to rich corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

Would it be so terrible for the wealthiest Americans to pay the same tax rates they did in the 1990s? That would net 690 billion dollars—compare this to the 61 billion dollars in federal budget cuts Republicans have proposed which come largely at the expense of less fortunate Americans.

Shared sacrifice needs to start with those at the top, but Republicans seem to think it should start with everybody else. The only logical conclusion one can draw is that they have declared…

(say it with me)

A Republican War On The Middle Class

************

Class warfare is real. It’s happening. And we mustn’t shy away from calling attention to it. If you want to know more about the decline of the middle class in this country, read your Robert Reich (he writes with fierce passion and intelligence on the subject). Arm yourself with facts. Rant your own rant. But please, let’s use the same language. Let’s talk about The Republican War On The Middle Class until we’re blue in the face–or at least until they stop waging it.

My son’s impending birth has had a frantic and focusing effect on my work, as I’ve been cramming to get as much done as possible before he arrives. My original goal was to finish a solid first draft of the script I am working on by the due date, but that is increasingly looking like an unrealistic goal. Now, I’m just trying to get as close to the last page as I can. Wish me luck.

As for blogging, that has gone by the wayside of late, but I’ll be posting my latest political rant shortly. More to come…

1. You don’t want a future of economic crashes and bubbles. If you don’t like the mess we’re in now, then we need to elect leaders who are willing to crack down on Wall Street–something Republicans have a lousy track record with. Over the last 30 years, Republicans (along with moderate Democrats) have eliminated key regulations that were put in place after the Great Depression in order to–you’ll never guess–prevent a second Great Depression. While both parties share the blame, the Republicans have been the ones leading the deregulation charge, and they continue to be the party pushing for more relaxed rules. This year, Democrats passed the most sweeping regulatory reform in half a century to try and restore sanity to our financial system. Today, many Republicans are hoping to repeal this legislation–and the important consumer protections that go with it. Don’t let them.

2. You want health insurance. You’re in luck. The health care bill passed by the Democrats is going to make it easier and cheaper for you to get insurance if you happen to be self-employed, working part-time, or working for an employer who does not provide coverage. If you are a young person, you can now stay on your parents’ plan until you are 26 years old. If you have a preexisting condition, insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage. These are big important changes. The health care plan is not perfect, but as problems crop up, we can address them by adjusting the current legislation. Give control of Congress back to the Republicans, and they’ve promised to try and repeal the whole plan, putting us back to square one. Which brings me to …

3. We cannot afford 2+ years of gridlock in Congress. At a different time in our history, there might be nothing wrong with a few years where very little gets done, but not today–not when we are in the midst of multiple crises. And make no mistake: this current crop of Republican candidates is practically campaigning on the promise of gridlock. You’ll notice that none of them are talking about reaching across the aisle or finding common ground. Instead, they promise to be unyielding and to use valuable time revisiting and repealing legislation we spent the last two years passing. Mitch McConnell recently said that his key goal in retaking the Senate was to win back the presidency in 2012. Not to create jobs. To win back the presidency. Does this sound like a future senate majority leader who is ready to compromise for the good of his country?

4. You want American education to get better. If you have kids or are planning on having them, then a strong public school system should be important to you. If that’s the case, don’t vote Republican. Even though our schools are falling behind, the Republican’s “Pledge to America” promises to cut our education funding by one-fifth. Republicans will tell you that education reform is not all about money, that there are problems with bureaucracy, and this is true. But guess what? Much of the problem IS money. How can we attract the best and brightest teachers if we aren’t willing to pay them competitive salaries? How can we avoid students falling through the cracks when we have 30 kids in a kindergarten classroom and not enough books for the high schoolers? These are money issues. You can talk all you want about private schools and vouchers, but most of our kids are going to go to public schools–and we need money to make them better. Incidentally, money invested in education is money we get back in the form of lower crime rates, increased tax revenue, and a more skilled workforce.

5. You want the Internet to remain a free and level playing field. Democrats have been trying to pass legislation to guarantee net neutrality so that broadband providers will not be able to discriminate between “preferred” websites and those run by Average Joes. Republicans have thus far blocked such legislation. If they get control of Congress, then net neutrality, and the web as we know it, may be gone for good.

6. You want leaders who aren’t afraid to pass unpopular legislation when necessary. The Tea Partiers may hate to admit it, but most of this ugly bailout and stimulus stuff passed by Bush and Obama actually worked. TARP achieved its goal of stabilizing the banks and is almost completely paid back. The American auto industry has been saved, and, along with it, countless jobs. As for the stimulus, serious economists of both parties agree that without it, we would have lost twice as many jobs. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says employment increased by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million people, compared with if there had been no stimulus. Today, the same Republicans who bad mouth the stimulus on the campaign trail are quietly applying to receive money from the stimulus budget to fund projects they know will create jobs. These emergency measures weren’t pretty and they weren’t perfect, but they have helped.

7. You hate the deficit. In order to climb out of debt, the U.S. government needs to take in more money and spend less. Republicans, unfortunately, seem to think they can solve the entire problem through spending cuts alone. They are deliberately vague on the details because the numbers don’t remotely add up–and because they know their cuts are going to be most painful to middle and lower class Americans and seniors. Some Republicans are even talking about cutting Social Security, which would be an immense disaster (click here to read the truth about Social Security). Democrats know that any cuts need to be sensible, so that they don’t hurt the people who most need help. They also must be balanced both by strategic investment and by the biggest no brainer of the election: allowing President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire. Don’t fall for the bogus Republican scare tactic about this “hurting small business”; less than 2% of small business owners are in this top bracket, and they’ll do just fine under the generous Clinton-era rates. Republicans talk tough on the deficit, but their strategies for dealing with it are too limited and too reckless. It is no wonder that the only president in the last 30 years to turn deficit into surplus was a Democrat.

8. You care about the earth. You are worried about having clean drinking water and breathable air in thirty years. That’s why you need to vote for the party that consistently pushes for innovation and green technology–not the party that consistently opposes such investments.

9. You don’t want a future in which elections can be purchased by the highest bidder. Ever since the conservative Supreme Court handed down the Citizens United decision, wealthy powerful people from the U.S. and abroad have been free to pour unlimited–yes, unlimited!–amounts of money into our political campaigns. New corporations have sprung up to accept this outside money, corporations that are not required to disclose the names of their donors. While it is unclear the extent to which these new companies will influence the 2010 election, the potential for future abuse is obvious and scary. For the first time, candidates can receive an unlimited donation from someone whose identity will never be known. This is a shocking step backward that can only be reversed by new legislation. Republicans have no desire to change the status quo, so if you value transparency in government, you need to vote Democrat.

And now for the one you’ve all been waiting for…

10. YOU WANT A JOB. Let’s be honest. No politician can promise to make private companies hire again. Whenever we climb out of a recession, hiring new workers is always the last thing companies do, and we’re simply not there yet. So what can our government do in the meantime? When companies refused to hire new workers after the 1929 crash, FDR hired them himself, putting unemployed Americans to work building bridges and highways. It was a success. Between 1933 and 1940, he cut unemployment nearly in half. Today, the Democrats are the party fighting to devote more funds to repairing roads, rails, and runways, and modernizing our energy grid. Republicans complain that this will increase our debt, but that’s false in the long term. We can either deal with our infrastructure problems today or put them off until tomorrow. Doing the work today is cheaper because the recession has given us super low prices on building materials and labor, as well as record low interest rates. Plus, it puts Americans to work immediately, bringing more money into the economy. This is another no brainer. Now if you don’t happen to work in an infrastructure related field, you might be wondering how this government investment will help you get a job. To answer that, I will give you one bonus reason to vote blue, one that addresses a fundamental philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats …

11. You believe that wealth does not trickle down from above; it flows upward. If you give a rich man $10, it will not affect his financial plans in any way. But give that same $10 to a man with a low income, and he’ll buy a sandwich. When those in the middle and those at the bottom have more money, they inject it back into the economy. This has been a core Democratic principal for years. Nowadays, when one criticizes Republicans for crafting policies that benefit the wealthy and powerful, that person is accused of playing class warfare. But let’s call a spade a spade. Republicans insist on securing tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans, but they refuse to extend unemployment benefits to help families put food on the table. How is THAT not class warfare? Today, the average CEO pays a lower marginal tax rate than the average nurse does. How is THAT not class warfare? Republicans argue that we need the rich to get richer so they can start creating jobs for the rest of us, but history has proven this trickle down strategy to be bogus. U.S. corporations are holding on to record amounts of cash right now, but they’re still not hiring. So why cut the taxes of their CEOs? Use that same money to hire a teacher or a policeman. They will spend the money they earn, and we will all benefit.

This election is too important to sit out. If you voted for Barack Obama in 2008, high on the promise of hope and change, do not stay on the sidelines now. Real change takes time, and problems of this magnitude take more than two years to fix. The Democrats have certainly made their share of mistakes these past couple years, but they are slowly getting us back on track. We can’t afford to go in reverse.

Please vote Democrat on November 2nd, and please tell your friends to do the same.

[ADDENDUM: Not every Democratic and Republican candidate fits neatly into the generalizations above, and it is important to learn about each specific candidate's platform. But you must remember that, at the end of the day, most Senators and Representatives are going to vote with their party leaders. If you decide to stay home on election day because you are not particularly excited about your specific Democratic candidate, then you are actively working against President Obama's agenda and actively empowering John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and the Republican movement. Even if you feel like you are choosing between the lesser of two evils, you need to make that choice! Apathy is not an option.]

I just heard this interview with him on Fresh Air.  It’s worth a listen.  His main point these days is about how the gap between rich and poor hasn’t been this high since before the Great Depression and that this is very very bad.  His explanation of how we got into our current financial mess (and why it will be tough to get out of) was about as spot on as I’ve heard.

This post on his blog is also pretty insightful.

The most infuriating thing about Fox News is that it claims to be fair and balanced. The most maddening thing about those who watch Fox News is that they believe it. They refuse to see what is obvious to everyone else: that Fox News shapes its reporting to fit a right wing agenda.

Every now and then, I pop on over to Fox News or their website to see how they are misreporting the news. They rarely disappoint me. Take Christine O’Donnell’s debate gaffe. Here is how it was reported on CNN:

Headline on CNN.com: Big oops moment for O’Donnell

Article Headline: O’Donnell gets Coons for Constitutional Law 101

Text: Christine O’Donnell received a lesson on the Constitution at Delaware’s Widener Law School Tuesday, but unfortunately for the Republican Senate candidate it came during a debate with Democrat Chris Coons.

On the issue of whether creationism should be taught in public schools, a highly skeptical O’Donnell questioned Coon’s assertion that the First Amendment calls for the separation of church and state.

“The First Amendment does?” O’Donnell asked during the Tuesday morning debate. “Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

The CNN article headline was a bit sassy, but it clearly communicated the big take away from this event: a candidate who was a Constitutional Government fellow, a candidate who speaks frequently and reverently about the Constitution, messed up her basic Constitutional facts in a very public, cringe-inducing way. (Full article here)

Now let’s see how Fox News website reported it.

Headline on Fox News: O’Donnell Takes on Coons, Constitution

Article headline: O’Donnell Takes on Coons, Constitution in Courtroom Debate

If all you saw on the Fox website was “O’Donnell Takes on Coons, Constitution,” you wouldn’t know O’Donnell had made a major gaffe.  It sounds like she was, in fact, the aggressor in this story, a gutsy heroine who attacked (“took on”) her opponent and even, when it was necessary, the Constitution.  You probably wouldn’t have thought this was a very newsworthy story.  But what if you clicked over to the article?  Let’s start reading:

Text:  Trying to demonstrate her grasp of constitutional law after recently blanking on examples of Supreme Court rulings she opposes, Delaware Republican U.S. Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell on Tuesday found herself chided by a debate panelist – in front of a roomful of legal scholars – for not memorizing the U.S. Constitution.

In this first sentence, notice that the verb ascribed to O’Donnell is “trying,” a positive action, whereas the main verb of the sentence, attributed to a “debate panelist,” is “chided,” a negative action.  A simpler version of the sentence is this: While O’Donnell was trying, a panelist chided her.  Chided her for what?  For not memorizing the Constitution.  Well certainly it would be unfair to chide someone for not MEMORIZING the entire constitution.  And to chide her in a room full of legal scholars … well, that makes it sound like the panelist was just out to embarrass her.

Except, of course, that’s not what actually happened.  This panelist told her she “should know”–not the entire Constitution verbatim–but simply what the 16th amendment is.  She should know that the 16th amendment authorizes Congress to collect income taxes.  Why?  Because many of the crazies in her party are now talking about repealing it.  It is a campaign issue.  But to read the first sentence of the Fox article, one would think that O’Donnell–who was simply trying her best–got scolded unreasonably after a gotcha question.  Poor Christine!

Let’s read on to find out how she was wronged:

The nice thing about crazy people is that if you watch one for long enough, his or her true nature will be revealed. You just have to hope the crazy is revealed BEFORE it is accidentally elected to public office.

A hero takes a stand.  Please stand with him.  I wish I could fly across the country for this.  I’m asking everyone I know on the east coast to do your part and show all the crazies that moderate reasonable people can actually rule the day.  

Jon Stewart phrases it more eloquently than I can, so click here to read what this rally is all about.

And watch the video below:

To explain why I haven’t blogged in over a year, it’s necessary to mention the video. And to do justice to the story of the video, I need to tell the story of how my adventures in book marketing began. And that means going back.

I’ll try not to make this one of those “I got screwed by the man” stories, because that’s not what happened. I feel very lucky to have found a publisher for my book–and a good one at that–so there are no sour grapes on my end. The people involved in this adventure are all good smart folk with noble intentions, as most people in the book industry are. But they are struggling, as the whole industry is struggling, to understand how to generate awareness for their products when the media landscape they once knew has been turned upside down. In this environment, the old William Goldman axiom about Hollywood, “Nobody knows anything,” is certainly appropriate. I’ll save deeper analysis for others. My goal is just to tell the story.  Here goes …

I’ll start in 2008. Or, no, it was 2007. Late August. That’s it. I was in New York to meet with the marketing team of my publisher William Morrow for the first time. My editor and agent had told me to come prepared. These days, authors are being asked to carry more and more of the marketing load for their own books. Arriving in New York with a telegenic smile and a head full of ideas could go a long way toward generating momentum and enthusiasm in the marketing department.

So, I prepared. I walked into the meeting ready to impress, armed with ideas for catchy taglines and web marketing campaigns centered around strategically placed teaser ads. Perhaps I was naive to think that the book of a first time author in a notoriously risky genre was going to get much of a marketing budget, but so what? I was green and hopeful. I told them my ideas–most of them low cost ideas–all of which they listened to politely.

Then, it was their turn. It was pretty exciting for me to think that these people I’d never met before had been having meetings and making plans all because of something I wrote. I felt like a celebrity. And I was curious. What did these marketing professionals have planned for me? Well … they told me they were very excited. A novel like The Scandal Plan gives them much more to work with (particularly in an election year) than your average book does. And even though the budget for my book would be small, they were confident we could do a lot with what we had. Great!

Our conversation would cover many topics including the creation of a web presence, interactions with social media, and the one thing my team seemed to agree was their ace in the hole. It was a brilliant strategy that had the potential to create mass awareness for my book. In one word:

Plastics.

Wait. Wrong word. And, actually, it was two words.  Here they are:

Viral video.

We were going to make one or more funny “viral videos” to spread awareness across the internet. Sounds very sexy, no? We make a brilliantly funny short video, put it on YouTube, and it gets gets passed around to 3 million people. Nice!

Now tell me, gentle reader, do you see the flaw in this brilliant plan yet? I saw it right away. There are over 200 million videos on YouTube, few of which get seen by more than a handful of people. The problem with making a so called “viral video” is that millions of other people across the world are also trying to make “viral videos,” and everybody is competing for attention. Making a successful viral video is like capturing lightning in a bottle. Still, it is the new sexy wave of the future, so that’s why everyone in the book business is trying to do it. Every book that is published these days, now must have what they call a “book trailer.”

Never heard of a book trailer? You’re not alone. Here’s the big secret that nobody in the publishing industry wants to admit: nobody watches book trailers. Nobody, that is, except for other people in the publishing industry. Want to know why nobody watches book trailers? Because most of them suck. Don’t believe me? Google book trailers and see what comes up. Better yet, go to a book trailer site like this one and start watching. The problem is that even when a book trailer does not suck outright, it is rarely worth forwarding. Usually, this is because the trailer is either unremarkable, unfunny, or feels too much like advertising. “Old Spice” commercials aside, we generally don’t like to send videos to our friends if we feel those videos are trying to sell us something. We want our viral videos to feel as if they exist solely to entertain us; we don’t like ulterior motives. In conclusion, while it is not impossible to make a book trailer that goes viral, it is damn hard, and in order to do it, you need . . .
A brilliant idea.

CUT TO ME IN THE MARKETING MEETING

ME
So what’s the idea for this video?

MARKETING PERSON
Oh, you’re a filmmaker. I’m sure you’ll
think of something great.

ME
(trying to sound upbeat)
Okay. I can give it a shot. My only concern
is that it sounds like your brilliant idea is
that I need to come up with a brilliant idea.

(awkward laughter)

And dammit, I tried. I racked my brain to come up with an idea that was brilliant enough to go viral. But I couldn’t crack it. Now, don’t get me wrong, I came up with a lot of good ideas, legitimately funny ideas for legitimately funny videos, and I sent each of these ideas along to marketing. But I knew none of them were good enough. Either they felt too much like advertising or they weren’t true to the spirit of the book or they were simply good but not great. I didn’t have my brilliant idea, and I knew it.

While I was trying to get my brilliant idea, I kept busy. I designed this web site you are currently visiting (which, given my meager technical skills, took a long damn time). I also created a Facebook group and an all-important MySpace profile (because just think of how many books you read because the author has a cool MySpace page. No?).

The MySpace thing was funny too. NewsCorp, which owns MySpace, also owns HarperCollins, my publisher–which I was told gave me a real leg up in terms of MySpace visibility. I was told that my MySpace page could be linked to and featured on various HarperCollins pages, and that this was just the start of all they could do for me in the wonderful world of MySpace. In the end, to the best of my knowledge, none of this magical MySpace stuff ever happened despite my friendly reminders. But, no worries. Again, is MySpace really a book selling powerhouse? Exactly. The focus would remain on viral video and our search for a still elusive brilliant idea.

MARKETING PERSON
We know a funny writer. Can we
pay him to take a crack at the video?

ME
Sure. Why not?

Horrible. Horrible. Horrible. If my ideas ranged from decent to good, this writer’s scripts ranged from terrible to embarrassing. Still, I had to put a pleasant face on things. If my marketing team had enthusiasm, I didn’t want to squelch it completely. So, I wrote a diplomatic e-mail, explaining that I didn’t think we had found our brilliant idea yet. I then outlined what was wrong with each script. I dismissed the first two scripts with fairly unyielding criticism. For the third, I went into more detail. Here is an excerpt of my comments on script 3:

“#3: Not funny as is. With the right context, this could be funny, but it will be a challenge to avoid making this joke feel labored and preachy. I think there are two ways to make this idea funnier.” —Here I set up alternative strategies in great detail. Then I conclude– “Can this be funny ENOUGH to go viral?  I’m not sure. I just pitched it to my girlfriend, and she said, “sounds sleazy without being funny.” Not a great sign, as she usually finds me funnier than most people do. To be fair, I think this can be better in the execution. But better enough? That’s the question.”

I had made the mistake of leaving an opening. And because the marketing team had already invested some of our meager budget on these book trailer scripts, they were hoping they could still get something for their money. A week later, I found a revised draft of script 3 in my inbox, and opened it, morbidly curious. Did this writer take my suggestions? Could he have possibly turned this terrible script into something halfway decent?

Er, no. Not only were my suggestions completely ignored, but this new video was both worse AND longer. To top of off, the script was now also offensive to women (who, I’m told, make up a large percentage of the book-buying population). Still, this train wreck of a script came with a very hopeful e-mail from my friend in marketing:

“I’ve attached a script for the video. It’s a solid direction which we are still tweaking, but I’d like to know your thoughts, because we’re at the point where we need to go ahead or cut it all together. I think it has a lot of potential and could be funny as hell done the right way, but give me your thoughts.”

Solid direction? Lots of potential? Funny as hell? Really? Really? How could anyone think this was funny as hell? I WISH I could post this script so you could read it for yourselves because, truly, words fail when it comes to describing its horribleness. Here’s my attempt at a diplomatic-yet-decisive response (note how I once again rely on my wife–then girlfriend–to play bad cop):

“Thanks for sending this on. My response to the sketch: frankly, I think we need to consider cutting our losses and moving on to something else. This script is actually a step backward. My inclination, for the sake of diplomacy is to deconstruct the myriad reasons why this script is the wrong tone, the wrong direction, nonsensical, completely untrue to the spirit of the book, and completely unfunny. But I feel like that would be a waste of your time. I had drafted an original email that started to do that, and then showed the sketch to my girlfriend for her objective opinion. “This is terrible,” she said, “If someone sent this to me, I wouldn’t have watched it for more than a few seconds, and definitely would have stopped the moment they said the word ‘va’juicy.’” And she is 100% correct. Making a viral video means making something that everyone agrees is VERY VERY funny, and that has some sort of universal appeal. Tweaking this puppy will not work.

I don’t think we should let this get us down. I know about very little besides the mechanics of humor, and coming up with this perfect video idea for this book has stumped me big time. Instead, let’s look for other fun ways to exploit our book concept.”

I ended the e-mail with some discussion about other strategies and some “Rah! Rah! Go team!” pleasantries, and that pretty much ended our search for the elusive brilliant viral video idea.

Until . . .

One year later.

The hardcover had come and gone from stores. Reviews were good. Sales were unimpressive. A pretty typical book release all things considered. But we had a second chance at catching fire: the paperback release. And suddenly, mere weeks before the paperback version of The Scandal Plan was about to hit stores, I finally got it:

A brilliant idea.

To be fair, this brilliant idea was a collaborative effort between me and my friend, filmmaker Nick Weiss, and like most brilliant ideas, it did not fall from the sky, but had to be found, shaped, and tweaked. But we eventually got it there in script form: a brilliant viral video idea.

The key was shifting the focus from the book to me. The Scandal Plan is a political satire with a unique premise: A losing candidate fakes his own sex scandal in order to humanize his image, thereby creating a redemption narrative, a comeback story, that he rides all the way to victory. The challenge is: how do you sell that premise in a short video? Do you show an excerpt from the book? Those dramatizations always tend to fall flat. Do you just pitch the premise straight up? That would be fine, but how do you make it funny? I did one sketch where I had Hitler on the Oprah Winfrey show as a candidate for office, showing how, as long as you learn from your mistakes, people will forgive anything. Okay idea, but still a bit of a stretch to get from there to my book.

Our brilliant idea came once I stopped worrying about precisely articulating the concept of the book, but, ironically, the idea captured the essence of the book better than any other previous idea I’d worked with. The video would not be about the book. It would be about me trying to market the book. The idea was to shoot a fake documentary about a struggling author (me) who takes increasingly desperate measures to market his novel. In the end, this author decides to fake his own death to generate publicity, but as he tries to do so, he accidentally kills himself. Dark stuff.

Now, you may not happen to think this idea was so brilliant. Heck, you may have seen the video and hated it. That’s fine. But, at the risk of sounding full of myself, I thought–and still think–it was a damn good idea that turned into a damn good short film. Here’s why I liked it:

a) It was funny. Desperate people do funny things, and because of the structure of the script, events naturally got crazier and crazier. I went from harassing strangers on Hollywood Blvd. to being waterboarded with a fruity beverage, to falling, quite dramatically, off a rooftop.

b) Shock factor. We had it. See above. My family apparently watched the video around the kitchen table in stunned silence.

c) It fit the book. A fake documentary about a fake death that occurred while trying to fake a death to promote a book about a faking a scandal. Perfect.

d) It had a specific audience, but universal appeal. This was a satire, not about politics, but about the publishing industry. Therefore, who was going to love it? Publishing people, booksellers, authors–all people who I wanted to get interested in my book, all people who had the ability to spread the word about my book. But it was also about more than just the publishing industry. It was about the modern artist’s struggle to be heard in a crowded media marketplace, about our universal quest for attention. Therefore, we hoped the video’s appeal would extend beyond the industry.

e) It had a distribution plan. We were borrowing from Blair Witch Project here, but the idea was simple: Spread the rumor that a real author really died, and that this documentary shows what happened. Now, after watching the video, would anyone actually fall for it? Most intelligent people probably wouldn’t. But then most intelligent people didn’t fall for the Blair Witch either, and most intelligent people know that President Obama is not a Muslim. What gives these stories legs is that kernel of doubt. That “This couldn’t be true, could it?” It’s the “could it?” part that is key, the fact that no one can disprove the rumor beyond the shadow of a doubt. We hoped the “could it?” plus the shock factor plus the funny factor would be enough to spread the video around.

Before I get to what actually happened with our project, I must first acknowledge what did not work about the video:

a) It was 10 minutes long.

You might be saying, “Well, there’s your problem right there!”–and I can’t disagree with you. Most viral videos are short, no more than 2-3 minutes. But we thought our movie was good enough and our backstory intriguing enough to make us an exception to the rule. But, again, I’m getting ahead of myself.

I asked my editor at William Morrow for money to help make the movie. Something, anything, even a hundred bucks would help. He’s a nice guy, but he couldn’t help us. While there may have been money for a video to promote the hardcover edition, the paperback had a limited printing and a marketing budget of approximately zero. If this movie was going to happen, it was going to be self-financed. I had a talk with my wife. We agreed on a budget. Nick and I got to work planning our shoot.

We shot the film in 36 crazy hours, and the story of that shoot deserves a post all to itself. Perhaps one of these days, I’ll get around to blogging about it. For now, I will just say that it was a funny, thrilling, cathartic, and immensely enjoyable experience. Nick then spent many hours at his computer editing the movie, far more time than he probably thought was possible when he first signed on to direct. But to hell with book sales, this had become a passion project for both of us.

Finally, it was time to disseminate. We had a death to fake, a movie to spread, and a book to sell. The way we saw it, there was one key to the success of this ruse: everyone had to play along. One of the things that Nick and I were most proud of about the video was that we never winked at the audience. The onscreen accident happened quickly, without warning, and it was treated as 100% real. This was not a book trailer. It was a documentary about an unfortunate incident that actually happened.

Nick, my wife, and my publisher would be the ones to spread the word about my demise. First, I sent an e-mail to my contact list. I didn’t want anyone to be alarmed by the e-mail my wife was about to send, so I let everyone in on the joke. In retrospect, this leap of faith may have been ill advised, but I’m still glad I did it.

Our friends were great. They spread the word. One Harper Collins exec on my list was quick to post the video to her blog. The only problem was: she did not play along with the ruse. Instead, she simply praised it as “a clever short film from first time novelist Bill Folman.” I was flattered, and didn’t immediately tell her to take it down and repost it as a serious news item–which is exactly what I should have done. Regrets, I have a few.

But the real killer was my publisher. I didn’t mind doing all the leg work, didn’t mind paying for the video myself, but I did need them to do me one favor. HarperCollins had contacts. I needed them to spread the word. The problem was: they didn’t want to play along with our fake story. To be more accurate, they didn’t mind playing along, but they were worried about sending out any statement that was an outright lie. Yes, you read that right. A media company owned by Rupert Murdoch was worried about lying.

I plead my case, and eventually ended up playing the waiting game, wondering when I’d hear back from marketing about what was going on. Finally, my editor told me that a press release had gone out. Hallelujah! He gave me a list of media outlets that had received the press release. It was everyone. Every major paper, website, you name it! Wonderful!

Then he sent me the copy.

Whoah.

When I saw the subject line, my heart sank.

FW: Did an author really die taping a book trailer?

I smelled the “cutesy” a mile away. I put myself in the position of any newsman reading that subject line. Did an author really die taping a book trailer? Nah, probably not. I read on anyway:

Dear Colleague,

We wanted to share this very funny book trailer that Bill Folman, author of The Scandal Plan, has put together to publicize the paperback edition of the book. In a hilarious case of life imitating fiction, Folman shows just what scandalous—and disastrous lengths—a writer will go to publicize his book. If only he had learned from his own character’s mistakes!

Here is Bill’s final publicity video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRNS0I2x3JU

We are deeply saddened by this tragic, yet oddly humorous, twist of fate.

To offer your condolences, or for more information on The Scandal Plan, please feel free to contact me.

I was livid. So much for not winking. I couldn’t squeeze any more winks into a single e-mail if I tried. They referred to the film as a “book trailer.” They basically called it a fake. And that press release went to EVERYBODY. Upon further reflection, it occurred to me that it probably took multiple people and much discussion to come up with such terrible copy. And yet there it was. Blasted across the country. Nothing more could be done.

Now, I can’t claim that if only HarperCollins had listened to me, this film would have been a viral hit. It probably would have attracted more eyeballs, yes, but how many more? And I have no way of knowing whether it would have added up to a single additional book sale. Perhaps it wouldn’t have. I’ll never know. The film did get passed around a bit in literary circles and received a certain amount of praise, but that was as far as it went splash-wise.

Still, though the distribution element did not go exactly as planned, I would make the same film again in a hot second. I loved making it, and I love how it turned out. I think it is one of the best stories I’ve told in any medium. And it gave me a chance to work with my friend Nick and discover a creative partnership I hope to revisit in the future. So shed no tears for me, dear reader. My only regret as I write this is that you cannot currently see the film online.

YOU
What?! You just spend 1800 words talking
about a short film that I can’t even see?
What the hell, dude?

I know, I know. Isn’t that frustrating? I wish it weren’t so. But here’s the problem: I still need a day job. And at the moment, that day job is teaching children. If you’ve seen the video, you know that, while it is dark, there is nothing REALLY offensive or out of bounds about it. Still, some people don’t have much of a sense of humor, and I can’t risk that person being the parent of a child I’m teaching. When I’m teaching 6th graders who like to google my name, I have to err on the side of caution. I look forward to making the video public again the second I become a writer who doesn’t need a secondary source of income.

For now, let me address the question that inspired this post in the first place: why haven’t I blogged in 14 months? It started by design. As you will notice from my last post and this one from June 2008, I was playing into the story of the fake documentary on my blog. Naturally, once I was “dead” I would have to maintain blog silence for a reasonable amount of time. The problem was getting back to blogging once this whole episode had passed.

When I was a student, I never liked keeping a journal because I would always fall behind. Days would pass and then weeks, and I would start to feel pressure. My next entry would have to be brilliant. I would have to spend a solid day writing in order to catch up on all the highlights I had missed. Invariably, that solid day would never come, and my latest attempt at journaling would soon be abandoned.

I felt the same pressure with respect to today’s entry. It’s been one year and two months since my last blog post. Surely, any new posting would have to make mention of this conspicuous absence. That meant mentioning the video. That meant telling the story I just told you. And now I’ve done it. The hurdle has been passed. I can now move on to shorter, less consequential things. Like that latest viral video flying around the web, the one with the bad word in it. You must have seen it by now, I’m sure, but I’ll put the link here anyway.

Brilliant stuff.