If ‘Community’ Gets Cancelled, Which Actor has the Most to Lose?

Posted on
4

When news broke last weekend about Whitney’s untimely passing, I had a simultaneously morbid and uplifting thought: “After losing the star and namesake of one of its primetime sitcoms, will NBC bring back new episodes of “Community?”

Alas, as you no doubt know, it was Whitney Houston who died…not Whitney Cummings. And while I have nothing against the comedienne and alleged TV star (besides that damned laugh track), Cummings’ self-titled show is part of the logjam of quality television that compelled the Peacock Network to put its edgiest, most critically acclaimed and social media revered property on indefinite hiatus.

What’s that? NBC has pathetically bad ratings? No one watches *any* of its scripted programming? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

With rabid fans salivating about the fate of their favorite pop-culture infused show, I was certain that NBC would do the right thing and find “Community” a timeslot. Yet, as the weeks and months have passed since the initial hiatus announcement, the sitcom’s prospects seem more and more dire.

And so, if “Community” truly has fired its final paintball gun, we must think about those who will suffer the most – the actors. Which of the seven key players has the career stamina to fight on and continue shining in the bedazzled limelight of the business they call show? And which are destined to be nostalgic answers on the back of a Trivial Pursuit card?

In descending order (from “guaranteed success no matter what” to “you may want to get that GED after all,” I present the cast of “Community” and their likelihood of future Hollywood employment:

7. Joel McHale – quite simply, the dude is a star. Anyone who watched “The Soup” knew years ago that McHale is a happy-fun-time bloke who oozes charisma. Good looking without being threatening, he also has a quick wit and awesome hair. No, he’s not George Clooney, Brad Pitt or yours truly, but McHale will have little trouble finding work for the foreseeable future.

6. Alison Brie – at first blush, Brie doesn’t look like much of a Hollywood heavyweight. But her roles in not one, but two adored shows (insert inevitable “Mad Men” reference here) have proven that (insert inevitable “more than a pretty face” cliche). She has taken Annie Edison from the shy, mentally unstable girl of Season One to a woman with soul, depth and grown-up charm. There aren’t many actresses who can so artfully walk the line between sweet and sexy…and that’s why Brie will be working consistently for years (you know, until she turns 30. Then, it’s plastic surgery or Tuesday night book club with Sherry Stringfield).

5. Chevy Chase – the cast’s only star when “Community” debuted, Chase’s fame derives from work performed before most of the sitcom’s fan base was ever born. Maybe he’s often overrated as a comedic lead, but as a supporting player, he’s top notch. Besides, as long as those “Caddyshack” residuals keep rolling in, Chase can afford to choose only the plumpest of roles. Hopefully, that means he’ll finally commit to the long-awaited sequel to “Cops and Robbersons.”

4. Donald Glover – initially written as a one-dimensional ex-jock, Glover’s Troy Barnes has transformed beyond the lovable simpleton with a heart of gold. No less of a pop culture authority than Rolling Stone has declared Glover to be a triple threat, and hey – my friend’s older brother used to read that magazine so it *has* to be true! Plus, perhaps more than any of his cast-mates, Glover has embraced the meta appeal of “Community” through various social media star turns (not to be confused with Star Burns).

3. Danny Pudi – TYPECAST ALERT! TYPECAST ALERT! Pudi plays a *very* specific character – he’s got brown skin and a disability (Abed has Asperger’s, right?). Such a mix can often be the recipe for one-hit wonderism, but Pudi has enough ethnic ambiguity (he can play characters from the Indian subcontinent AND those from the Middle East!) that he should be able to find post-“Community” work. Plus, he’s so damn likeable that Pudi will find an audience…even if it’s not as wide as the ones enjoyed by some of his peers.

2. Yvette Nicole Brown – once you’ve seen one sassy black woman in Hollywood, it’s likely that you’ve seen them all. But Brown isn’t just a stereotype…did I mention she can sing too? What’s that? You’d be surprised if the sassy black woman couldn’t sing? Now who’s being racist? The truth is that while Brown hasn’t shown much acting depth on “Community,” she did epically dress up as a Pulp Fiction’d Samuel L. Jackson…and that counts for something in my book.

1. Gillian Jacobs – shockingly, the “Community” cast member with the lowest career upside is the pretty blonde girl. It’s not that Jacobs in untalented, but unless a future script calls for a “slightly younger Elizabeth Shue type,” she has no discernable talent to set her apart from thousands of other actresses in Hollywood. That means if you’re a fan of Gillian Jacobs AND Cinemax After Dark, 2018 will be a VERY good year for you.

Sorry, Britta, but you really are the worst.

Why I’m Opting Out of #FollowFriday

Posted on
4

Any social media expert/ninja/guru worth his or her salt will tell you that engagement is the key to getting results out of online activities. And yet, at the end of every work week, the Twitterati collectively engage in one of the least personalized and most automated of interweb interactions.

I’m talking about #FollowFriday. And I want out.

Last Friday, as my stream was flooded with #FF messages, I tweeted out a thought:

Millions of people are tagged each week in #FF posts. That sounds like a nice idea, but  most of the Tweets are really just a list of names without context. If I want to know who you’re following, I’ll visit your profile page. I believe that – for many of these users – #FF is a ruse by which they fish for reciprocation; after all, it’s impolite to not return a compliment (or at least say thank you). #FollowFriday – once a way to learn about new users on an emerging social media platform – has devolved into a system in which people solicit ReTweets and mentions without generating useful content.

Of course, not every #FF is a selfish act masquerading as benevolence. My friend, Jen Price, tweeted at me that she enjoys the practice. “When #FF is done well, with a reason for following, I find new people to follow. I appreciate the introductions to new folks.”

Jen is right…when people share details and make introductions, #FollowFriday can be a valuable tool. It’s just that 99% of #FF messages ignore that basic common sense. I’ve seen some people use the hashtag #WhyIFollow, while including a bit about the person. Ephraim Gopin has been known to use the hashtag #YFF (the Y is for WHY) and do the same thing. Aren’t these tactics more helpful?

Even after acknowledging the small numbers of folks who do it “right,” the sheer majority of bad #FF Tweets has pushed me to the breaking point. I appreciate each and every time I’m mentioned in someone’s #FollowFriday tweet, but please know that I will never again publicly thank you or RT your mention. It’s not that I don’t care…it’s not even that I don’t think you legitimately enjoy the content I generate. It’s just that I think there’s a more genuine way to point your audience in my direction, especially if you think my Tweets, blog posts and/or ideas would interest them.

Groucho Marx once famously said that he would never be part of any club that would have him as a member. The #FF Brigade is actively evangelical and would accept anyone with its ranks…isn’t that reason enough to be wary?

What do YOU think? Do you participate in #FollowFriday? Do you RT your #FF mentions? Why or why not?

The Only Social Media Resolution that Matters

Posted on
1

This week I’ve read scores of articles and blog posts listing year-end social media resolutions, tips, tricks, best/worst strategies and more. On the cusp of the New Year, it’s normal to look back and look forward, but the trend is more than a little overwhelming. That’s why I’ll make it easy for you; there’s one thing you should resolve to do in your social media efforts, one word that runs through all of 2011’s best practices and will be part of every single social media success story in 2012.

That word is engagement.

Perhaps it’s not earth shattering, but in 2012, individuals and brands can no longer afford to just “be on” social media. Using social media platforms to simply broadcast a message is unacceptable; those who put effort into building their communities will (and already do) matter more than the ones that are only interested in selling and promoting.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you can’t do social media well without being social.

Lose your automations. Give credit for your inspirations. Follow/friend/circle liberally…but not so liberally that you miss potentially interesting content. Listen more than you talk. Show gratitude. Be serious without taking yourself too seriously.

There are hundreds (thousands?) of social media platforms, and it’s likely that 2012 will see the birth of many more. With a million channels to connect, it’s easy to forget that there’s only one way to build something that matters. Engage and you will reap the rewards.

Happy New Year, friends. I hope to hear more from you in 2012 than you hear from me…and I wish you and your families happiness, health and success.

NAUGHTY OR NICE: Credit Where it’s Due

Posted on
Reply

Note: this week, I’ll be examining trends in social media and/or philanthropy and attributing a “naughty” or “nice” rating to them. This is the fifth and (thankfully) final installment.

Pardon my French, but Twitter is one big circle jerk.

Maybe that’s overly crude, but I think you know what I mean. A particularly interesting or valuable link can be shared dozens, sometimes even hundreds or thousands of time. When you follow many people in a specific sphere of influence, it often seems like the same people are sharing the same links from the same websites over and over again. Except there’s a major difference in how some of us share links, and even though it can feel like there’s no law on the “Wild West Internet,” there’s one rule that too many people have no problem breaking.

If you didn’t write it, credit the person who did. No exceptions.

Let’s examine how a specific link was shared by two different Twitter accounts today:

5 Social Media Articles to Unwrap and Enjoy Today j.mp/uJtYwn via @pushingsocial

— Stanford Smith (@pushingsocial) December 23, 2011

Stanford Smith writes for (and runs?) Pushing Social. He wrote the article and Tweeted the link, including his own handle. Was that redundant? Perhaps…but perhaps not when you consider that Michael Corley read Stanford’s post and thought it was valuable enough to Tweet WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION.

I have nothing against Michael Corley and feel a little bad for calling him out like this. Michael, if this gets back to you, I hope you realize two things: 1) it’s not personal; and 2) it’s unlikely that anyone besides the two of us know about this blog post.

I realize that 140 characters is a significant limit, but there’s always room to credit an author. Sometimes you want to squeeze an editorial comment into your Tweet, but I promise, your audience does not appreciate your personal opinion nearly as much as the writer appreciates getting recognized for his or her efforts. In fact, I believe that leaving out the author (or at least, the website) from your Tweet is akin to plagiarism.

That’s right, I said it. Plaigiarism. It’s an ugly word, huh?

Image copywright is likely owned by Fox and/or Matt Groening. But who cares, right? It's the internet. I invented Bart Simpson!

I urge you to remember this lesson the next time you share a link on Twitter. Writing is a cumbersome, often unrewarding task. Even if you’re not technically claiming credit for someone else’s work, an unattributed link *feels* like that to the author. Believe me, linking to an article without crediting its creator is a naughty, naughty no-no.

It’s the season of giving. If you think something is valuable enough to share, don’t be a Scrooge and deprive credit from its source.

**********

Whatever and however you celebrate, I hope you and your family have a warm, safe and happy holiday season. Thanks for reading!

**********

Previously in “Naughty or Nice”:
12/19 – Listing your Klout score on your resume

12/20 – Printing your face on a business card

12/21 – Social Media Interns

12/22 – Breaking a Promise

NAUGHTY OR NICE: Breaking a Promise

Posted on
1

Note: this week, I’ll be examining trends in social media and/or philanthropy and attributing a “naughty” or “nice” rating to them. This is the fourth installment.

I’ve got writer’s block today, but it’s not because I’m lacking a topic. It’s not because I’m at a loss for words, either. It’s because I got some bad news yesterday that has yet to scab over and start to heal.

I’m OK. My family is OK. I don’t mean to be melodramatic and there’s definitely nothing for anyone to worry about. I promise. I just can’t blog. It’s that simple. No need to raise any alarms. I hope to share a new post (and perhaps some details) tomorrow.

So if you’re here to read my “naughty or nice” review, I’m sorry to disappoint you. Suffice to say, breaking a promise to one’s limited blog readership is extremely NAUGHTY.

**********

Previously in “Naughty or Nice”:
12/19 – Listing your Klout score on your resume

12/20 – Printing your face on a business card

12/21 – Social Media Interns

NAUGHTY OR NICE: Social Media Interns

Posted on
2

Note: this week, I’ll be examining trends in social media and/or philanthropy and attributing a “naughty” or “nice” rating to them. This is the third of five reviews.

Last week, I asked my Twitter followers to help me identify some naughty or nice trends for this series. One follower was especially exuberant about her topic – unpaid interns running a company’s social media presence. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you six passionate comments from Vik Gill:

  • “Nonprofits so cash-strapped they have to use unpaid interns for social media [is a] bad idea!”
  • “Why would you trust the social media presence of your business to somebody who has no social media work experience?”
  • “The fact that a student has been playing around on Twitter and Facebook does not a social media expert make.”
  • “Unless you are giving interns the most trivial tasks, the amount of damage they can do to your brand is unquantifiable.”
  • “How much do you really know about social media if you think someone with no experience is the best person to build your brand?”
  • “Using social media interns creates limitations that arise from a business model that requires free labour to sustain it.”

I’ll cut Vik some slack for the improper spelling of “labor” because she’s British and they think they invented the language.

Do you really want this "dude" to be the online voice for your brand?

Vik’s points are spot-on. When we are uncomfortable with a task, we instinctively want to stick the responsibility on someone else. Interns are young, so they know computers; interns are free, so it makes sense to assign them the duties that don’t generate any revenue.

And if you accept those conclusions, I look forward to your 2012 tales from the unemployment line.

It’s easy to assign your interns (or even younger/entry level employees) to social media. It may even seem logical to do so. But social media is increasingly becoming the way corporations, nonprofits, peer groups, causes and more engage their audiences. Our online ambassadors need to be passionate and knowledgeable if they hope to grow and indoctrinate supporters. Interns often have enthusiasm, but it’s not their job to personally invest…it’s their job to figure out what they’re good at and what they want to do with their professional lives.

At the same time, it’s hard to determine social media ROI. It can often feel like we’re shouting into the ether. It may even seem like our Tweets and posts and likes and shares are often a colossal waste of time. But they’re not. One fan’s passion can spread to thousands of his or her peers. It’s difficult to do social media well, but is it any harder than a hundred other tasks in our competitive marketplace? Skimping on social media is just a cop-out for business leaders afraid to invest in something they don’t completely understand.

As 2011 draws to a close, it’s comforting to see that most successful brands have accepted the fact that not doing social media means money left on the table. In 2012, here’s hoping that more will realize that doing it incorrectly can jeopardize their future.

Oh, and if you couldn’t figure it out, using interns to run your social media community is a big, fat naughty!

**********

Previously in “Naughty or Nice”:
12/19 – Listing your Klout score on your resume

12/20 – Printing your face on a business card