If you have a young one, or otherwise have had to endure the awkward silence of Dora, then you need to check out this spoof that aired recently on SNL.

If nothing else, it’s a Monday reminder that it’s okay to poke fun at yourself – it may even help strengthen your brand image with fringe publics.

For all of Airbus’ woes, today is the day they seemed to all melt away – if for only that moment when the 550+ passenger plane touched down on U.S. soil for the first time.

The company has been plagued by delays that triggered the cancellation of several orders that add up to more than $3.3 billion in costs to the company according to The New York Times.

Today, however, it doesn’t seem to matter. The media have been abuzz with the plane’s massive body. “Flying on football field-length wings, she’s as tall as a seven-story building, roomy enough to fit 70 vehicles on its wings, as heavy as 500 Volkswagen Golfs and big enough to carry 35 million ping pong balls” they scribed. Enough soundbytes to ground a, well, nevermind…

Aside from the cool pictures, the tale isn’t smooth sailing at all. No American airline has purchased a single $319 million A380 and none has any intent to do so. Thousands have been laid off by the public/private Euro partnership and a CEO has been ousted. Airports have scrambled to make accommodations for the monstrosity with taxiways widened, runways realigned, and doubledecker jetways installed. We’ll sit tight too – waiting to jump to any conclusions on the argument that more passengers on fewer flights is a good thing until we get a sense of how much carbon this puppy spits out per passenger mile versus other aircraft.

In lieu of any hard data at hand right now (and a lack of brain cells to care that much), we’ll play along and let the jet enjoy its media tour on the two coast with a pointless flight around Manhattan ooh and aah onlookers who question physics just one more time.

Meanwhile, if you want to assemble one yourself, here’s how:

Via every media outlet under the sun.

We have a problem with the latest DIRECTV ad that features Christopher Lloyd in updated Back to the Future scenes.

The main point of the ad, which was produced by Deutsch Inc., is that DIRECTV supposedly has a greater long-term capacity for HD channels versus standard cable.

The question is: Do new HDTV set owners really care? Most cable systems in the U.S. today offer an HD version of programming that provides 10-15 HD channels plus on-demand offerings. This – for the most part – is more than enough outlets for the quantity of HD programming that exists today. In fact, many of these channels only broadcast HD programming for certain shows and revert to letterboxing SD content most of the time.

DIRECTV, through this ad, is saying that the system has the ability to provide up to 150 HD channels of programming. Great, but no one cares right now because the programming content simply doesn’t exist.

Slickly produced ads like this only work when what the company is trying to communicate is relevant to where the marketplace is and what consumers’ expectations are. No one should be fooled into thinking that by switching to DIRECTV that they’ll suddenly be able to swim among 150 channels of HD programming. If they are, they’re not going to be a happy customer.

We’re surprised that Mr. Deutsch let this one slide. This post over at BTTF.com completely misses the point too.

A couple of years ago, we attended a meet-and-greet with a communications exec from Kodak up at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University. Turns out that Kodak gets royalties for most every digital camera that’s sold based on patented technology inside.

Via Engadget.

Scott Kirsners’ recent Mercury News article on online video viewing is important to consider in the not-so-quiet war going on between those who wish to see the web remain the broad media platform available to the everyman, and those for whom the web is the next technology after radio, film, and television to become dominated by strictly commercial players, pushing the neophytes to the side. However, in predicting that viewers’ tastes over time respond more to quality production and branded content, such as happened over time in film over a century ago, Kirsner doesn’t pay nearly as much attention to another key driver which the consumer demands now more than ever, and should help extend the relevance of the individual uploading their own amateur produced clips – the demand for choice.

Kirsner demonstrates how with technology like film, early on many people would pay admission simply to see workers leaving a factory, or a train arriving, or an older man kissing an older woman. As film matured people began to want to see a story with the moving images, and to use film to see other places they had never been to before. All the while production techniques improved. Over a much longer period of time the ability for the consumer amateur to make home movies at a price point many could afford became a reality. However, even though over time movie studio content began flooding the theatres and then cineplexes, moviegoers never quite gave up their taste for smaller independent films, and still actively seek out alternatives to mainstream film. Does a flood of movies from a movie studio mean it will be harder to find the smaller film? Maybe. But even on the viral video web today, the chances of your clip reaching the heights of the Mentos Diet Coke Duo are pretty slim … but not impossible. And the web provides something independent films in days past never had, a community connected together through the Web to spread the word to the world, or to a specific niche community.

Now comes “viral” video on the web on sites like YouTube, Google, Brightcove, and even AOL to name just a few. Kirsner sees the same pattern emerging. We think finally a medium will democratize the mass communications landscape, allow anyone to become a broadcaster, and finally bring more everyday voices to the conversation that until now have been shut out. Media giants meanwhile, stand back and watch the parade of “Chinese teens lip-syncing to the Backstreet Boys” clips, among others, to see which site will win the hearts and clicks of viewers. Then they buy it, and over time brand that site with their own content, some new – much of it repurposed from other outlets.

So I agree over time some viewers may tire from scanning mindlessly through a steady diet of skateboarding mishaps and karaoke singers or schoolgirls cackling – as viewers tired of the novelty of film motion and watching people leaving a factory. Over time, as Kirsner asserts, more viewers may naturally gravitate towards those branded sources of content they already know and trust – created with more professional production values. However, Kirsners argument seems to present a static choice; a choice where viewers will decide to watch a David Letterman clip or an amateur clip of a comedian who is not a household name. My belief is consumers will demand the maximum amount of choice of content, from strictly amateur to the latest movie studio trailers. The branded content may take over more slots on the top ten viewed list, but the desire for fresher, independent content will still be there. Because along with consumer demand over time for higher quality, today’s consumers demand more choices, and they are willing to look beyond the obvious to find the surprising, maybe more authentic choices. Cable television quickly became passé because what looked like broad choice (with channels such as Bravo aimed at presenting the fine arts to a wide audience), quickly narrowed to a point where Bravo served as little more than a rerun platform for NBC shows like Law and Order, ER or drearily recurring reruns of Braveheart. Only when consumers began leaving cable for satellite (with far more choices) did cable respond by emphasizing true choices in programming and on demand movies, as part of their digital packages.

One final comment regarding production quality. Have you noticed what passes for broadcast television these days? Many reality programs on MTV, VH1, HGTV, TLC, even some reality series on network TV are produced using tools and techniques not much better than what ends up on YouTube. So because these viral video sites do not represent a static of “shelf space” for the number of clips to view – not subject to simply being replaced by professional branded content, these sites, if they are forward thinking – will expand to accommodate content across a vast range of genres. They may even create a separate category and ranking for amateur citizen content, easy to find and search and not in direct competition with big media branded content.

Kirsner does not seem to use as a reference the “print web”, which is further along – but look what has happened. The blogesphere allows anyone who signs up to become a published writer with millions of potential viewers (if they can find you and you them). Many careers were spawned (such as Anna Marie Cox, who founded Wonkette and now, among other things, is the Washington Editor for Time.com). The media giants jumped in with both feet and now even Tom Delay has a blog. The fact that the famous blog has not constricted the pool of amateur bloggers, only expanded the blogesphere’s real estate. Same with podcasts. Jim Cramer and NPR may have popular podcasts, but it is giving established media brands too much credit to think that they too will continue to pump out original content for the web. That challenge is not unique to amateurs. Many of those popular branded podcasts are already repurposed existing content – not new content.

Will media giants infuse more content? Yes. But with more, better and cheaper video cameras, and the coming of more cameras and software tools targeted specifically for creating web enabled content, I simply do not see the public being nudged aside over time in this medium the way they were in radio and television. Yes quality and brands tend to win out over time, but more often that happens in a market with static shelf space. 21st century video consumers will continue to demand expanding choice, from within the mass commercial marketplace, and outside of it. People still demand of the Internet the ability to make the surprising find, to make connections outside of the dominant marketplace. It has already happened in music, where the market is becoming more fractured than ever. It will continue in video for the foreseeable future, as the medium continues to mature and video integration on websites becomes more commonplace. TIME magazine was right in naming “You” the Person of the Year. For consumers of internet video being a viewer is no longer an option. Many of us demand the ability to be producers and participants, a point Kirsner seems not to give much credence.to. Yes I want to know what Tim Russert or Cramer or “Tech Chick” Cat Schwartz has to say on many subjects. But I am also fascinated to know what “You” think.

~Jay B. Childs, Video columnist
   PRpulp

If you like The Office, you’ll probably like Dog Judo.

Nice little viral deal for a draggin’ afternoon at the office.

Be careful with new features on products. People will actually use them and tell the world about their experiences. Today, it’s easier than ever to do so.

In this case, the new feature adds up to $5,000 to the already hefty $60k+ price tag. Based on this popularly circulated video, it isn’t worth squat.

Via AdFreak, American Copywriter.

It’s fairly normal for stand-up comic to feel moments of awkwardness. But when it’s awkwardness for reasons other than failed jokes, it starts to get interesting.

Michael Richards, more famously known as Kramer from the Seinfeld show, recently went off on a racial tirade to an African-American person sitting in the front row of a recent stand-up show. Apparently the guy was heckling him a bit.

The remarks he made we’re so bad, we’re not even going to reproduce them here. You can go on over to TMZ to read about and see video of the act if you’d like.

In response, Richards last night appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman via satellite link as Jerry Seinfeld was on promoting the latest season of the Seinfeld DVD set.

Here’s TMZ:

As Richards began explaining the “nasty things” said about “Afro-Americans,” the audience couldn’t help but chuckle. Seinfeld, immediately scolded the crowd, saying “stop laughing, it ain’t funny.” But the crowd couldn’t help themselves.

The confused fans continued to chuckle, and Richards seemingly blamed Letterman for the awkwardness. “I’ve already heard you make some jokes about it and that’s OK, but I’m really busted up about it.”

Richards admitted that he may have acted without thinking. “I’m hearing your audience laugh … and I’m not even sure that this is where I should be addressing the situation.”

You can watch the video clip here.

Celebrities, CEOs, politicians, and other prominent figures often turn to highly watched TV shows as a medium unto which they can “set the record straight” or attempt to redeem themselves. Sometimes, it just doesn’t go right.

As PR pros, deciding about whether or not to advise a client to do such a thing is a challenging exercise. There are often many competing reasons for participating. To make things more stressful, the pressure to appear on Letterman – potentially a show you’ve been trying to get on forever – may be coming from the show’s producer and not from the internal side.

In the end, it comes down to your best judgment about what to recommend based on your experience with the spokesperson and thorough knowledge about the show’s format and interviewer’s style. You can even try to get a written agreement in place to frame the situation even further, but most news-only outlets aren’t going to let that fly.

For Richards, things like the audience’s reaction were out of his control and potentially destroyed his ability to regain any sort of confidence whatsoever. Instead, he might have better off showing how bad his remarks were through actual response versus simply getting on air and apologizing to an often vilified public.