Funny > Smart

Someone recently said to me: You're a strategist that does stand up comedy? That's weird.

Here's why it's not weird to me:

As I looked over creative entries at the last several advertising award shows, I couldn't ignore the fact that a huge percentage of the best work utilized humor.

I also couldn't stop thinking - What do strategists know about comedy? Do they know WHY we need humor? Do they know what makes one thing funny and another not? By not knowing these things, are they less helpful to the creative process?

David Ogilvy - the ad man most famous for once dismissing comedy, later wrote "I have a theory that the best ads come from personal experience. Some of the good ones I have done have really come out of the real experience of my life, and somehow this has come over as true and valid and persuasive."

His statement seems to parallel Stanislavs insight: "That which is most personal is most universal.", but in advertising we preface our personal feelings with an apology: "It's just a focus group of one, but i think..."

Ogilvy made his anti-comedy quote BEFORE Lenny Bruce changed comedy. Because of Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor and George Carlin comedy has become "an intense investigation into what it means to be a human being."

Personal truth + universal relevance = modern day comedy. As a strategist, how could you not want to learn EVERYTHING about how or why it works?

Because most strategists have their heads buried in books on social psychology and neuroscience, they tend make things complicated, rather than simple. Simple takes more work from a strategist, complicated leaves more work for a creative. They turn a tricky problem about how to sell a product into an impossibly tight uninspiring box about how the brain works.

That reminds me of my grandfather complaining to my mouthy uncle: "If I ask you what time it is, don't tell me how to build a watch! Just tell me the God damn time!"

I have committed to doing stand up 4 nights/week. 4 nights a week I am standing in front of a focus group of 50 to 200 people and watching how the audience responds to every single comics take on his/her personal life and what JUST happened in the news THAT DAY. How often do most strategists leave the office? How often do they speak to your target audience?

Even if you're not using humor - comedy is THE most disruptive form of story-telling...and the rules absolutely still apply.

If you still don't believe that comedy is filled with deep true insights that often come from an unexpected angle, see below:

Louis CK - Everything is amazing & Nobodys happy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

Anything you can do...

I've seen multiple case studies for digital campaigns. Most emphasize the handoff from TV, print or radio to digital. Some explain that digital catalyzes a different part of the "path to purchase", but this case study shows something else. It proves that digital has the potential to do, what no other medium can. I wont minimize it by describing it as part of the "long tail" theory. To me it's something much more human. It amplifies the most effective form of advertising - story telling (the most viral form of word-of-mouth).

Successes like these don't come from integrated agencies or integrated marketers, they come from innovative thinkers who understand people. The type of person who can look at marketing research that says 92% of people will not buy this product...and say yeah, but 8% will!

Hot and Cold

Dan Ariely conducted a really interesting study at UC Berkeley a few years back where he attempted to understand how decisions were changed from a "cold state" (rational) to a "hot state" (emotional). One of the most powerful examples of Hot and Cold states is pregnancy.

Women prior to giving birth (cold state) often deny the use of an epidural, but once labor begins (hot state) they ignore their earlier decision and want pain killers - badly.

Dan Ariely argues that these states exist in all sorts of situations: young males for example when asked if they would ever have unprotected sex almost always answer "never!", but statistics have proven (Unwanted pregnancies and STD's) that when these young males are in an aroused state that their cold (rational) state decisions are quickly ignored.

Dan Ariely argues that hot and cold states are based on "the seasonality of the consumers mind" not based on perceptions towards a particular product or category alone.

A product CAN live in both hot and cold states e.g. a frozen fish brand can advertise its exceptional taste in December - a time of year when most consumers eat whatever they want, even expecting to gain weight. In January that same product can speak about its health benefits - when consumers are all thinking about getting back in shape.

Yes consumers are now in charge, but I don't believe most agencies take the time to truly understand WHAT is in charge of consumers.

Digital Celebrity

I just read a note by my favorite British comedian Russell Brand. He wrote about Jade Goody (UK Big Brother reality star) who recently passed away from cancer. Russell made a really interesting point: "Fame has long been bequeathed by virtue of wealth and birth and this is the first generation where it has been democratically distributed by the most lowbrow of phenomenon - reality television" - this made me think about brands and how we continue to define celebrity from the dictionaries of the older generations.

If you are a gaming brand, you should be aware of Yahtzee - a video game reviewer who reaches 1 million + views on his youtube videogame reviews. Almost EVERY time!

Carls Jr. used Paris Hilton to connect with young males off line, but I wonder if they ever considered using Tia Tequila online? She had over 4 million friends on myspace and over 16 million page views BEFORE VH1 gave her a reality show, or "Molls" whose hilarious blog receives over 50,000 page views a week?

WWTDD.COM (What would Tyler Durden Do) is a celebrity blog written from the perspective of my favorite Fight Club Alpha Male. Massively trafficked site that is constantly mentioned on TMZ and KROQ's nationally syndicated radio program.

It's not just reality TV that has democratized celebrity, its the digital world too.

These "democratic celebrities" seem to be missed by most and I think it's a big mistake. The attached video is Weezers Pork and Beans where Weezer incorporates Youtubes best into their music video. With nearly 18 million page views I wonder if they aren't helping rewrite dictionaries.

Movie trailer revolution coming soon

The attached video was part of The Exorcist film premier in the early 1970's. What I think is so progressive was the shift from showing a standard 30 second film trailer IN viewers homes to bringing the viewer into the experience FROM their home. I wonder if their idea wasn't inspired by Roone Arledge of ABC sports? Hmmm.

In the 1960's NCAA Football games were really problematic for a fledgling ABC sports. Most fans only cared about their own schools team, so if a popular team lost...the next game would inevitably have poor ratings. Enter Roone Arledge who stated "Television has done a great job bringing the game to the viewer - now we are going to bring the viewer to the game!" 

Camera's shifted from pan shots of the field, to pre-shot film of the campus, stadium, town and fans. Roone once said "We must orient the viewer, by allowing him to know how many people are watching the game with him, If the game is in Corvallis, Oregon...we need the viewer to know how mad the town is about football." 

This methodology was used later to increase female viewership of Olympics programming by telling the athletes story. Childhood, struggles, parents, siblings, etc...And again to increase viewership in boxing - almost every big fight today includes back stories - all for the purpose of multiplying the number of "entry points of attraction" to the event. It just seems to work.

The Exorcist EXPERIENCE became pop culture by doing this. It even showed up as a major story on the evening news. At the film premier fake ambulances were parked on the curb outside of the theatre further stoking the belief that if you missed this film, you would have missed out on an experience that everyone was talking about. Personally, it would have reminded me of not getting picked on the soccer team - standing alone, watching a crowd have fun.

I applaud the JACKASS film trailer that premiered a few years back, the movie trailer did not show 1 clip of the film, but instead turned a night vision camera on an audience that was laughing its ass off. Just like Roone preached, they brought the film to the viewer. 

Certain emotions can create "emotional contagions" (laughter, sadness and anger) - the phenomenon that happens when we laugh simply because others are laughing...oddly, followed by asking "what's so funny?" 

Film trailers have been beyond lazy and now with the window between theater and DVD release narrowing, they will need a revolution, lest we see the end of theaters in our near future. 

Vu Ja De

If there is only 1 lesson that Youtube and the likes have taught me, its that agencies are over thinking and under doing.

"Vu Ja De" is a great little phrase that I came across, which describes the ability to see what WILL be important. What WILL be relevant and engaging enough to grab the attention of a population.

There is a fantastic case study from Denmark written by Martin Lindstrom, in his book Buyology.

Years ago Luciano Pavoratti decided to visit Denmark. The entire country was excited as this was his first visit. Radio and TV shows scheduled interviews, talk shows announced live telecasts and press wrote article after article about the anticipation of his arrival.

Sadly, the Italian tenor got a sore throat and cancelled.

Pavoratti was top of mind for nearly everyone in Denmark when a nimble agency decided to approach Gaiola, a Danish sore throat lozenge with an over night campaign:

"Things would have been different if Pavoratti knew about us." ran in local papers the very next day and Gaiola immediately became part of Danish pop culture forever. Vu Ja De.

Fast is the new big. If you're thinking when others are doing...you've lost.

A strategist today needs to also be an investigative reporter with a bit of Vu Ja De. You must be able to not only understand what will influence a consumer, but also how consumers influence each other.

The attached is an example of being an investigative reporter, as well as a strategist. Before we asked ourselves how the Australian government can stop young males from speeding...we asked ourselves how young women would convince them?

Friends, tricks, strangers and lies

The other day I watched a Youtube video of a cute girl who apparently met a man in a cafe, had some great conversation and grabbed the coat that he left behind. Why did she make a Youtube video? An attempt to find him and return the jacket. Ahh romance!

Here's the part that's causing some controversy - its a fake video created by a media agency in Sydney for a fashion retailer called Witchery. 

As the effects of the global recession begin to hit Australia, I think more and more agencies will be asked to explore these digital stunts and inevitably more and more agencies will make the same mistake this agency has - believing that a stranger (unknown brand) can behave like a friend (preferred brand). 

The problem I have with this video is that a STRANGER has made me the butt of her joke. 

Close your eyes and imagine a stranger making fun of you at a party, okay now open them and say the first thing that comes to mind...mine was "ASS (pause for emphasis) HOLE." 

Droga5's successful Airforce1 viral for Marc Ecko did it differently. They "tricked us" the way a magician would,  the treat was well worth the trick. The trick was so entertaining that the impact was only slightly diluted when we discovered the truth. And if you are a real Marc Ecko loyalist you were rewarded with an insiders clue, "live free" was tagged on the presidents plane - giving you the social currency of knowing Marc Ecko was involved before the general population. 

The differences between relationships with strangers and friends are well documented in social psychology studies. Dan Ariely describes 2 distinctly different worlds in his book "Predictably Irrational": The world of monetary market norms (money=service e.g. a prostitute) and 

non-monetary social norms (friendship/love = service e.g. a date who decides to sleep with you because she likes you). 

The Witchery video leads us to believe that this woman is from the world of non-monetary social norms (girl you date), but once we discover the author is actually from the world of monetary market norms (prostitute) many feel ANGRY. 

Droga5 seems to have first understood the relationship between Marc Ecko and the consumer. They made sure that the behaviour of the brand was consistent with the image in consumers minds. Mixing those 2 up leads to massive problems, just ask the white kid who walks into a room full of black hip hop aficionados and says "what's up my ni...."... That's an exact quote, he never finished the sentence. 

A friend can play an entertaining trick. What Witcherys agency did not seem to understand, is that a stranger playing a similar trick...is nothing more than a liar. 

Dead or Alive

While working on Nissan at TBWA Chiat/Day in Los Angeles, I came across a really interesting phenomenon. 

During the launch of the '09 Nissan Z, we discovered that the owner to vehicle relationship was strikingly similar to those of Porsche, Mustang and Corvette. 

Unlike most vehicles, these cars inspired multiple purchases of the same make and model - again and again, year after year. I met several people that owned a 4th Nissan Z, a 5th Mustang, a 3rd Corvette.

During the process of conducting an ethnographic study, I attended several owner groups and drives. I met with owners individually, some of their wives or husbands, went for drives in their cars, listened to their stories (Without a notebook. I looked at them when they spoke.) and asked loads of questions online, across dozens of blogs. 

After becoming active on several Z owner sites, I began to feel a sort of quietness every time I returned to the Nissan built site. To be honest, it confused the shit out of me! The Nissan built site was beautiful, had gorgeous imagery and was very easy to navigate. All the right boxes were ticked!

I began to do these side by side comparisons with the other vehicle sites as well and noticed that a VERY different language was being used by owners when compared to manufacturers. 

This directed my curiosity towards psychology, social science and philosophy journals to find if there were any studies conducted on people and the relationships they have with certain kinds of objects.  

To my surprise I found an amazing book called "ich und du" translated from German to I and thou by Martin Buber in 1923. 

In the book, Buber describes 2 relationships he named "I-it and I-you": 

I-it describes an unemotional relationship, one where a person may treat another person as an object e.g. a surgeon NEEDS to maintain an i-it relationship with the patient he is about to cut into. 

It is incredibly difficult for surgeons to operate on family members or loved ones for example. Unfortunately, once surgery is complete many surgeons have difficulty treating that patient with the emotion they removed from the relationship...often leading to the all too common complaint of "poor bedside manner".

The reverse can be seen with a human to object relationship e.g. asking to buy an object at a yard sale where your question is answered with a "Sorry, this teddy bear is NOT for sale, HE has sentimental value". 

That person has ADDED emotion to an object. Essentially treating it as a living thing. Buber described how I-it and I-you relationships can both be identified via adjectives. 

With this new insight in hand, we went back to the owner created web sites and were able to identify an I-you relationship, e.g. the cars were treated as if they were LIVING, BREATHING BEINGS. A he or a she.

When we reviewed the manufacturer web sites, EVERY SINGLE SITE had an I-it relationship with the vehicles, meaning they spoke about the vehicles they created, as if they were DEAD THINGS. An it.

The video below is a target audience brief that I decided to "bring to life" with the help of one of my favourite creatives, Ken Pappanduros.  Much of the "living language" used by the passionate owners is quoted in the voice over, also done by the Papps! :) 

We learned that this vehicle is not a mid-life crisis car, but rather a reminder that they are and have always been different than societies norm. A little braver, a little bolder.

Some explained how they enjoyed getting tattoos, because most only talked about it.

Some surfed, because most only talked about it. Some lived on the beach, because most only talked about it. 

Consistently, they enjoyed DOING what others only talked about, and that included getting a powerful 2 seater sports car.

I believe agencies need to start treating focus groups as learning groups. Not building discussion guides, but actually having discussions...guide. 

We need to learn from Hollywoods methodologies and understand how to become method actors. Learn how to look, walk and find the voice of our most passionate consumer, rather than the voice of a passionate salesman. 

Thank you for smoking...more.

"If I asked my customers what they wanted, I would have made a faster horse"  - Henry Ford

The attached photo is an example of the fear tactics used by most of the world to "stop teen smoking". Australia, for one reason or another seems to use pretty extreme imagery in comparison to other countries I've lived in. 

I experienced a bit of culture shock when I walked into my first Sydney liquor store to find these graphic images of disease on cigarette boxes. My shock almost immediately turned to laughter, as I watched a barely 18 year old girl instruct the cashier to give her the box of ciggies with the heart disease photo instead of the mouth cancer photo. I ALMOST forgot how durable and adaptable I was when I was 18. 

This experience was fresh in my mind when I recently read a book by Martin Lindstrom called Buy-ology. The book is awesome! Martin Lindstrom who is an absolute, baby faced, Danish born, Sydney residing - BAD ASS describes a series of experiments conducted via neuro testing that validate what Henry Ford, and most of us have already concluded - people don't always know what motivates them...at least not in a focus group environment.

The experiment that is most relevant to the fluffy artery in the photo above, was the graphic anti-smoking images test. Martin showed a room full of smokers very graphic images, not dissimilar to the photos that now exist on all Australian cigarette boxes and asked if these images would make them less likely to smoke. 

The vast majority answered with some form of strong YES. He then conducted the exact same test, BUT had the respondents brains connected to an FMRI machine. 

Here's the crazy part - not only did Martin prove that these images would NOT stop people from smoking, he proved that graphic images of disease actually made people smoke more! 

Now, let's overlay one of the very first human truths learned from a year 2 Social psychology class: People are more motivated by the idea of losing something, than the idea of gaining that very same thing. 

So, I could argue that telling young people what they will GAIN by smoking (disease) has been proven to NOT be as powerful as telling them what they may LOSE. So what loss would motivate young people to stop?  

If you buy into Erik Eriksons psychosocial development theory (8 ages of man), you will agree that younger people are in a life stage where they are as focused on "self identity"as babies are on eating and pooping - it's why Erikson theorised every single generation of teen rebels against authority (Gen Y's rebellion is much less of the James Dean variety, but in Ron Alsop's book The Trophy Kids grow up he validates that the millennials still seek self identity via - rebellion without anger) . 

They want to find answers for themselves and their "chosen future families" are more important than their "given families".

If I was the Australian government, I would follow this path of logic and try to address and stop the role smoking plays on the self identity of young people.

Smoking for young people is a way of fitting in, its a way of looking cool (many would think sexy). It's an accessory for a rebellious statement. Showing disease...only validates that the rebel, is rebellious. 

Friends are your "chosen family" - massively important point. As Romeo and Juliet taught us, young people would rather die together, than live without their chosen future family.

So, what if the Australian government stopped telling young people that smoking will make you gain disease - and instead showed how it could make them lose friends.

Lose friends because:

- Smoking will make you ugly

- Smoking will give you bad breath

- Smoking makes you look stupid

- Smoking does NOT make you look rebellious anymore

All of these "losses" are immediate (the speed most preferred by youth), all happen the minute you put a cigarette to your lips, NOT decades after.

Ugly, stupid, uncool AND stinky breath?  Wow, this is is beginning to sound like the voice of a bitchy young girl right? Good! 

Young, bitchy girls are the masters of words that cut like a knife,  masters of starting or stopping friends from engaging in all kinds of behaviours. Its a voice that I strongly believe the Australian government needs to think about adopting.

With tobacco companies being responsible for the executions of their own warning labels, I can't help but wonder if maybe, just maybe this counter productive way of speaking to youth is something big tobacco understands and uses to their benefit. 

Banks, tattoos, sun block and Karma

I recently took the ferry from Sydney to Manly and was impressed by a local Australian bank called Bank West. As I waited to board the ferry I was handed a little promo by an attractive young gal. Yes, yes, "young and attractive" are always smart things to attach your brand to, but this was different. 

To be perfectly honest, I had my ipod on and over the sounds of a Rage Against The Machine ballad I said THANKS! (a little too loudly) and ignored the promo until I slowly began to watch this piece of cardboard become the topic of smiling conversation all around me. 

Much to my embarrassment, I realised that what I ignored was something this heavily tattooed guy forgot to bring (and badly needed) on the ferry ride to Manly - sun block! "We're looking out for you this summer" the packet read. I smiled and kept it. 

Being new to the city, I was still sorting out my finances and a week or two later I went out of my way to find a Bank West. No seriously, I really did go out of my way.

I know what you're thinking and BELIEVE ME when I say I'm probably more cynical than you, BUT along with my unhealthy cynicism is a healthy dose of child like curiosity. So, I dove into my old social psychology notes and found what I think is the humbling answer. 

A couple of years ago, I attended a seminar on persuasion and compliance by a Stanford Professor named Dr. Robert Cialdini. He is one of the most successful and well known social psychologists in the world and also surprisingly hilarious.

I studied social psychology at University and Dr. Cialdini's seminar directed me towards some old notes titled "Why karma works!" 

The notes outlined an experiment that took place towards the end of my first semester back at school, near the Christmas break. A classmate and I picked 50 perfect strangers names from the local phone book and sent them Christmas cards. 

We basically wrote "Just wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!" - Over the course of the next couple of weeks, we received 34 cards back...from perfect strangers - wishing us a Merry Christmas (that's like a 68% response!!!). If you're a true cynic this is the part where you'll silently start to get turned off. Start thinking aww, this guy is full of shit. So, I recommend that you let your curiosity silence that cynicism by trying it. It's cheap and entertaining :)

One of the principles Dr. Cialdini described is called "the law of reciprocal exchange" (its what made strangers feel the need to mail us back). It's a law that is innately in us all. Every single country, state, city, village, culture, every race, gender on the planet. It's a human law that simply states: If someone does something for you, you should do something for them. It may be conscious, it may be subconscious - but for most of us, it's very very real. 

Next time you do something for someone at work, next time you go out of your way to help out a friend, next time you do anything and feel a bit pissed off at your favour not being returned - instead of responding with a "No problem" to THANK YOU - throwing away any sense of future credit, say "I know that you would have done the same for me" - watch how much easier your favours will be returned! It's brilliant. That one act alone, has changed my work and social life for the positive.

This human law, also has implications for brands. There's a famous case study where the same brand, in the same city, branded two different things with two very different attitudinal scores: One group was given a branded coffee cup - low to negative response. The other, a branded cup holder that protects the fingers of customers from the heat of the cup - positive response. We ALL have a sense of "future obligation" towards people, groups, even brands that FIRST give us something. 

Is this basic human truth the engine that drives Karma? I think it is.

In this new age of advertising (that sounded very Star Trek! haha) -  brands like Youtube, Google, Flickr, etc...ALL seem to GIVE FIRST, in order to RECEIVE LATER. It's not about a product OR a service - it's learning how to think about your product AS a service.  

It's about brands learning to believe in Karma.

The Beatles, Hamburg, German Strippers and Practice

Over the last 15 years I've had the honour of working with loads of really smart strategist, but to be honest I've started to find that more and more often, the smartest planners are missing the simplest and biggest truths.

I've always believed that one of the greatest abilities a strategist can have is the ability to make difficult things simple, but in sharp contrast to that belief I'm hearing a consistent and universal pattern of complaints from agency creatives about strategists that make simple things - difficult. 

Just a few months back, I worked at TBWA Chiat/Day in Los Angeles where I overheard a planner - who had a reputation for being "really smart" say there will never be another Beatles! 

He continued into an incredibly long and complicated explanation of media and how it's changed, of television and how the "critical mass" had been reached in 1964, and how the alignment of 7 key factors had essentially created a perfect "popular culture storm". Wow, I thought to myself - that sounds really complex. So complex as a matter of fact that I just didn't buy it. 

I started to think about my own love of the Beatles,  of myself after work, as a lover of music not an agency guy. I love the Beatles because they simply wrote, played and sounded great. Simple.

So, I decided to do my own research into why the Beatles simply wrote, played and sounded as brilliantly as they did. A test to see if there was a simple answer. 

The info below will give an opinion on whether or not there will be "another Beatles". I did not read journals of social science. I chatted to my Uncle (he was in a Beatles cover band and an avid fan since I was a kid), read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers and watched the documentary Shout - that's it:

The Beatles came to the United States in February of 1964, starting the British invasion that transformed the face of popular music. It was a MASSIVE thing! I know this will piss a lot of people off, but Lennon was right - they kinda were bigger than Jesus. Which is especially weird, because his look was VERY in style in 1964.

The first thing that surprised me during my research was just how long the Beatles had actually been a band before they "hit it big". John and Paul had been playing together since 1957, that's 7 years before even arriving in America. 

What happened during those 7 years is the REALLY interesting bit - in 1960 when the Beatles were still a struggling high school rock band, they were invited to play in Hamburg, Germany. Hamburg wasn't known for great live music back then, what they were known for was numerous and fantastic strip bars. 

A club owner named Bruno had the idea of bringing young, English rock groups to play at his strip bars so, this German version of Tony Soprano went to London - and by good or bad luck, happened to meet a would be Liverpool-based entrepreneur who promised to send him "London's best" - what Bruno got was, Liverpools average, including The Beatles. 

The Beatles first International job however, was NOT average. Bruno, having previously worked at the German equivalent of US county fairs, had a different rock club model than CBGB's. He wanted bands...and strippers to perform for HOURS as 2nd, 3rd and 4th audiences cycled in and out of his venue, a "non-stop strip tease" was the basic idea. Can you imagine the Beatles and naked German girls? That's just awesome! 

Hamburg didn't really pay very well, the acoustics and audiences were kinda shit, BUT the amount of time that the Beatles were made to play...was insanely differentiating from other bands. Here's a great quote from John Lennon (You can find this quote in Malcolm Gladwells book - Outliers): 

"We got better and more confident. We couldn't help it with all the experience we gained from playing ALL night long - it was handy being from Liverpool because we had to try even harder than the locals, put our heart and soul into our performances to get ourselves over (to Hamburg). In Liverpool we only ever did 1 hour sessions and we only did our best numbers - the same ones, over and over. In Hamburg we had to play for 8 hours so, we really had to find a new way of playing." 

They played like this 7 nights a week! And as they got better the 12:30 closing time was extended till 2 most mornings - I gotta say this again, 7 days a week! 8 hours a night! How do you even think about doing something like that without a WHOLE LOTTA COCAINE??!!!

Now here's some simple math to contest the complex "7 factors" that my strategic friend waxed poetic:

The Beatles went to Hamburg 5 times in less than 2 years - On the first trip they played 106 nights - 5 or more hours each night. On the 2nd trip they played 92 times. On their 3rd trip they played 48 times - for a total of 172 hours on stage. Again, ALL within less than 2 years.

The Hamburg experience totalled 270 nights in just over 1 year and 6 months.  By the time the Beatles actually did end up on American television, they had performed live an estimated 1200 times.  Most bands do not perform 1200 times in their entire careers!

So, is it the complex 7 factors ? Personally, I don't think so.

To quote the fantastically simple Sir Winston Churchill: "Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential."

The Beatles simply tried harder than any band before them...and because of that, I KNOW we will see another Beatles before we die. Keep your eyes on the hardest working bands as we inch towards our next musical revolution. It may or may not be bigger than grunge, may or may not be bigger than hip hop, but we're due. 

Personally, I think it will happen in '09 and I'm watching Radiohead closely.