2 janvier 2011
a five-horse race
At mid-season, after 20 games, Arsenal stands third with 39 points (3 points less than last year). It’s two points behind United (19 games) and City (21 games). Spurs are fourth with 36 points (20 games) and Chelsea fifth with 35 points in 20 games. It’s going to be a five-horse race possibly till the end. So far it’s the most open race in many years with five teams tied in six points after 20 games. Even Chelsea cannot be written off.
After a good win against a poor Chelsea on December 27 – it was the first win over ManU or Chelsea, either home or away in any competition for almost three years! – Arsenal typically lost two points at Wigan stupidly, leading 2-1 comfortably with 10 minutes to play (it should have been 3-0 by then), and conceding an own goal by Squilacci and a draw. But there is great improvement since the United game, when they were poor (United were poor too but slightly better and won 1-0 with a Park goal). Chelsea game was the first in a long-long time where Fabregas, Walcott and van Persie were all playing. We saw against Chelsea what difference a fit Fabregas makes (he missed the away defeats at Chelsea and United earlier and it showed). Chelsea by contrast has had a horrendous series. In the last few weeks, it is at least feeling how it’s like to have three essential players injured or out of form (Drogba, Lampard, Terry).
Out of the ‘Big 8’ of last year, three are decidedly struggling this year: Aston Villa (#16, missing O’Neil), Everton (#13) and Liverpool (#9). They are no longer contenders for top four. Instead we now have a solid ‘big five’ with City and Tottenham both confirming their good season last year. At least City should be considered a title contender at this stage and Spurs are not too far off either.
The biggest satisfaction this year so far: indisputably Nasri. He has been simply amazing. Best PL scorer for the club with 9 goals (far behind Berbatov 14 and Tevez 12 admittedly). Wilshere and Song too. Chamack of course. Arshavin and Walcott have been stop and go. Fabianski has now become #1 goalkeeper. He has made some costly mistakes, fewer than in previous seasons, but most fans would still want to buy a great name instead of Almunia and Fabianski. The biggest problem has been defense as usual. With Vermaelen injured, no perfect central defense combination has been found so far.
Overall Arsenal is top scorer (42) but conceded way too many (22) compared with City (16) or United (18).
The great mystery is Manchester United, yet again. Without any significant re-enforcement last summer, and despite Rooney being out of form and threatening to leave at some point in the autumn, the team is undefeated. They should have suffered the same woes as Chelsea (United looked as Rooney-dependant as Chelsea was Drogba-dependant) and indeed the season start was slow compared to Chelsea brilliance till October, but then United resilience has been as impressive as ever. They won again against Arsenal despite a poor display and again today, they won an undeserved 2-1 against WBA. United has difficult fixtures ahead but has the dreadful habit of finishing strongly. If Rooney is to come back to full form and Berbatov to maintain his current form, their lead will be difficult to cut.
Arsenal has the easiest fixtures for the remainder of the season: playing United, Liverpool, Everton, Villa and City at home (the only tricky away game being Spurs) whilst United and City will both play at Chelsea and Arsenal. The Arsenal-ManU game at the end of April might be a decisive one.
In the meantime Arsenal must win the Carling Cup. With an upcoming semi against Ipswich, and the winner to play either West Ham or Birmingham, a first trophy in six years must come to break the inferiority complex and persuade the team they can win the League too. Very little can be expected in the Champion’s League as Arsenal drew mighty Barcelona and its world champions yet again in the last 16.
12 décembre 2010
arsenal takes top spot before crucial ManU test
Some could say it’s ‘small club mentality’ to take a picture of the PL table as soon as Arsenal gets to the top rank, just in case it doesn’t last that long. That’s what happened several times before. Arsenal have very briefly taken the top spot occasionally over the last few seasons but they never managed to hold it more than one or two games or even a few hours. And to be fair, we have played one more game than ManU, who are one point behind. And this Monday, another ManU-Arsenal classico will test the new leaders. Despite the top spot and the excellent record away this season, no-one is very confident that Arsenal can beat ManU for the first time in six fixtures. The last two games were wins, but not the kind of win of a confident, powerful title contender should grab at home against smaller clubs: against Fulham in PL (2-1) and against Belgrade in CL (3-1). In both games Arsenal took the lead, dominated the game completely but then conceded a stupid equaliser, suddenly lost composure and looked shaky behind. Win was only secured in the last 20 minutes and the team looked vulnerable till the end. The Spurs syndrome (losing after a 2-0 lead) is somehow still in the players’ heads. The official spokesman for Arsenal sceptics is pundit Alan Hansen on Match of the Day who keep saying, week-after-week, that Arsenal cannot win a major trophy with goalkeepers and central defenders that are just ‘average’ against the steel of the Ferdinands, Vidic or Terrys at their best. He’s also, as everybody, questioning the team’s nerves despite its amazing ‘creativity’.
Arsenal will once again play one of the big two without key players: Fabregas and Vermaelen, our best defender. Just like they both missed the Chelsea game earlier this season (our only away defeat). ManU on the other end look better and better after a not-impressive season start. Rooney and Ferdinand will play, no major player is missing, and the last PL show (7-1 win with 5 goals from Berbatov) has injected a ton of confidence in the squad. Evra, the usual barking dog of sir Alex before this fixture, has reminded the press that Arsenal are babies and sissies, one more proof being that some of their players – Nasri most notoriously - wear a ‘snood’ around the neck when temperature is freezing. Like sir Alex confirmed, ‘real men don’t wear a snood’. Classic ManU intimidation. But somehow, it may be a good thing for Arsenal to be that much the underdog despite the top spot.
Chelsea meanwhile hasn’t won in five PL games. Since the sacking of their coach Wilkins and the shock home defeat to Sunderland (0-3) the club is in crisis. Even the return of Terry and Essien has not brought back confidence. Lampard is still injured. Later today, a tricky game at in-form Tottenham could see Chelsea concede their fifth defeat of the season.
14 novembre 2010
premier league after 13 games
After 13 matchdays, Arsenal has 26 points, 8 wins, 2 draws, 3 defeats. That's one point more than last season after 13 games. Arsenal are second, 2 points behind leader Chelsea (28 points) and one point in front of ManU. Despite the pre-season expectations, rising stars City and Spurs have disappointed so far. City is still fourth (22 points) and Spurs seventh with 19 points. Arsenal and Chelsea both lost three games. Arsenal lost to West Brom and Newcastle home but snatched good away wins at Everton, City and Blackburn. Yet again, an unimpressive ManU with Rooney injured in half the games, manages to remain fully in the race thanks to their resilience, having come from being several times. The only undefeated team also had seven draws.
I have been twice at the Emirates stadium so far this season: the West Ham game (1-0) and the Braga game in Champion's League (6-0). 26 points in 13 games is a good performance considering difficult fixtures (Chelsea, City, Liverpool and Everton away) and the many injuries: Van Persie and Bendtner missed almost all of it, Vermaelen too, Walcott half of it. When we played Chelsea, Fabregas, Van Persie, Bendtner, Walcott were all missing. Drogba on the other side, was there, and scored, as usual. Thank god Chamakh and Wilshere have been fantastic.
7 novembre 2010
the social network, by David Fincher
A really good film written by Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing) and directed by David Fincher (Seven, Fight Club). This is a sad film about sad people. Posh Harvard kids, frustrated computer geeks, hyper-social web partiers-entrepreneurs: sad people all of them.
The lawsuits against Facebook founder Zuckerberg from his earlier business associates are just a classic but efficient way of structuring the story, but it’s not another legal thriller. The real point of the movie is in the portrait of Mark Zuckerberg himself. The inherent weirdness of computer geeks is the subject, and this oxymoron: a computer geek turning businessman, whereas they normally lack both the social skills and interest. It’s the story of a man obsessed by computer programming and pushing their science project into a global business almost accidentally (the title of the original book is ‘The accidental billionaires’). It’s interesting to see that Zuckerberg was opposed to advertising or any ‘business model’ in early days and it’s very similar to how Brin and Page, the Google founders felt. They were all obsessed by growing their baby and not bothered to figure out whether it could be ‘monetized’ one day. Other similarity by the way: Brin and Page too were sued by Bill Gross the founder of GoTo.com for stealing the idea of their business model (keyword auctions and cost-per-click).
The secret ‘rosebud’ of citizen Zuckerberg in the film is that he did it to impress his ex-girlfriend after she dumped him. And if he could not win her back, at least he could make her feel bad. Other motivation: get revenge on the rich kids who wouldn’t accept the little Jewish nerd in their posh prestigious Harvard club. I suspect the real motivation for Mark Zuckerberg was simpler and probably indeed it was not primarily money. Like Page and Brin the Google founders, he just did what he was good at, obsessed by, i.e. focusing at designing cool web tools, and the ‘business model’ would follow popular success ultimately. But it took little time for those engineers to embrace the tricks of start up business and outwit ‘real’ businessmen (like Parker in the film).
Some may consider, with some reason, that the film carries the stereotypes against geeks. A mixture of disgust, contempt and fear that people from the ‘old’ media, from Hollywood and New York, feel for the young Silicon Valley geniuses. The ‘technology’ press has attacked the film for being ‘anti-geek’ or ‘anti-Zuckerberg’. I disagree with that. It shows Zuck as a sad guy. Arrogant certainly. Perhaps even a bit of an arrogant asshole in the way he treats people. Borderline autistic, driven with sexual and social frustrations but not really a bad guy. It reflects the ambivalence in the vision most non-geeks have of geeks. Zuck-the-Geek is no corporate Wall-Street villain. His idea of happiness is hacking all night with friends and pizzas, not buying yachts, cokes and prostitutes. And between the arrogance of the self-made billionaire and the arrogance of the posh Harvard twins (who in the end extorted him some $65m in settlement), our sympathy goes to Zuckerberg. Today’s web billionaires are in fact no more cynical than entrepreneurs and inventors have ever been and perhaps less (see the ruthlessness of a Thomas Edison). The dominant feeling is pity for all of them.
The conclusion of the film is that ‘social’ networks are ironically making people – including Zuckerberg - lonelier in a lonely world; that Facebook turned the social pressure of being cool and popular into a global real-time competition, luring people into thinking that happiness would derive from maximising the number of online‘friends’ and the volume of interactions with them.
Wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Network
The lawsuits against Facebook founder Zuckerberg from his earlier business associates are just a classic but efficient way of structuring the story, but it’s not another legal thriller. The real point of the movie is in the portrait of Mark Zuckerberg himself. The inherent weirdness of computer geeks is the subject, and this oxymoron: a computer geek turning businessman, whereas they normally lack both the social skills and interest. It’s the story of a man obsessed by computer programming and pushing their science project into a global business almost accidentally (the title of the original book is ‘The accidental billionaires’). It’s interesting to see that Zuckerberg was opposed to advertising or any ‘business model’ in early days and it’s very similar to how Brin and Page, the Google founders felt. They were all obsessed by growing their baby and not bothered to figure out whether it could be ‘monetized’ one day. Other similarity by the way: Brin and Page too were sued by Bill Gross the founder of GoTo.com for stealing the idea of their business model (keyword auctions and cost-per-click).
The secret ‘rosebud’ of citizen Zuckerberg in the film is that he did it to impress his ex-girlfriend after she dumped him. And if he could not win her back, at least he could make her feel bad. Other motivation: get revenge on the rich kids who wouldn’t accept the little Jewish nerd in their posh prestigious Harvard club. I suspect the real motivation for Mark Zuckerberg was simpler and probably indeed it was not primarily money. Like Page and Brin the Google founders, he just did what he was good at, obsessed by, i.e. focusing at designing cool web tools, and the ‘business model’ would follow popular success ultimately. But it took little time for those engineers to embrace the tricks of start up business and outwit ‘real’ businessmen (like Parker in the film).
Some may consider, with some reason, that the film carries the stereotypes against geeks. A mixture of disgust, contempt and fear that people from the ‘old’ media, from Hollywood and New York, feel for the young Silicon Valley geniuses. The ‘technology’ press has attacked the film for being ‘anti-geek’ or ‘anti-Zuckerberg’. I disagree with that. It shows Zuck as a sad guy. Arrogant certainly. Perhaps even a bit of an arrogant asshole in the way he treats people. Borderline autistic, driven with sexual and social frustrations but not really a bad guy. It reflects the ambivalence in the vision most non-geeks have of geeks. Zuck-the-Geek is no corporate Wall-Street villain. His idea of happiness is hacking all night with friends and pizzas, not buying yachts, cokes and prostitutes. And between the arrogance of the self-made billionaire and the arrogance of the posh Harvard twins (who in the end extorted him some $65m in settlement), our sympathy goes to Zuckerberg. Today’s web billionaires are in fact no more cynical than entrepreneurs and inventors have ever been and perhaps less (see the ruthlessness of a Thomas Edison). The dominant feeling is pity for all of them.
The conclusion of the film is that ‘social’ networks are ironically making people – including Zuckerberg - lonelier in a lonely world; that Facebook turned the social pressure of being cool and popular into a global real-time competition, luring people into thinking that happiness would derive from maximising the number of online‘friends’ and the volume of interactions with them.
Wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Network
16 octobre 2010
christianity: a case study
Christianity was the first and most successful corporate story. It has developed brands and assets that have thrived, globally, for nearly 2,000 years.
A promising start-up
Christianity started small, as one of the many tiny dodgy sects in the Middle East. A few guys wrote a biography of a man called ‘Jesus’ based on second or third hand testimonies, which became a global best seller. Actually they wrote conflicting stories but for simplicity let’s say it was one book. The most successful compilation became known as the New Testament.
The religion started to gain market share in the competitive Eastern Mediterranean market, especially in Greece. But the first big breakthrough came when the franchise arrived to Rome. It was an instant hit with the plebs, the women and the slaves, all demographics that had been largely ignored by marketers up to that point. Rome had a tradition of free market and religious tolerance: you could pick and worship any big or small god you’d fancy in the Greek-inspired Roman pantheon and immigrants were allowed to worship their ridiculous foreign gods, provided they didn’t question the official Roman gods. During the Empire, Romans got bored of their old-fashioned gods and became increasingly fond of foreign, exotic deities. Isis, in particular, a sexy skinny Egyptian goddess, was quite fashionable. However, the official Roman religious staff grew uncomfortable with the success of ‘Jesus’. How come people would prefer to worship some miserable Jewish guru who died two hundred years ago rather Mighty Jupiter or the many utility gods Rome had temples for? Worse: the followers of ‘Jesus’ who started to call themselves ‘Christians’, seemed to believe that there was only one god, their own, and no other. They argued that Jupiter, Ares, Aphrodite were lies, that it was ‘bad’ to worship the ancient gods. And finally that mix of foreigners and stinking plebs started questioning the social order. That was too much too quickly and Roman competition authorities promptly made the sect illegal.
Some creative Roman emperors who liked combining order and entertainment had Christians eaten alive by lions in public. That was over-reacting and it backfired badly. Decadent Romans had gone soft and were no longer so fond of public bloodshed. The gruesome execution of Christians attracted public sympathy and turned out to be the most fantastic PR platform for early Christianity (later in Christianity, Christians would organise their own martyrdom industry, by sending their most fanatical members to suicide missions in deep pagan territories). Every lion meal drove new recruits and soon there were simply too many Christians and not enough lions. So Roman authorities gradually gave up on killing them off. Besides Christians sympathies were now running everywhere: many upper class kids – perhaps brainwashed by their Irish or Polish nannies – became fans of Jesus. The new religion was also attractive to intellectuals as it incorporated some elements of fashionable Greek philosophy.
Key success factors
The second massive breakthrough came when Emperor Constantine made his coming out as a Christian and legalised Christianity in 313 BC (the ‘Constantinian Shift’). Soon after that, in 392 BC, Christianity became the official religion of the Empire, leapfrogging a ‘legal’ free market stage. The other religions, the old ones, all of them, became illegal in the Empire. Like Communism later, in a master stroke, Christianity went from underground activism to absolute power.
At that point, Christianity changed its nature forever and soon developed an approach that made it global, allowing it to convert many nations and outlive the Roman Empire.
To the powerful it promised ‘give us legal monopoly over religion and education, and we’ll provide soft power, making sure peasants pay their taxes to you and fight for you if axed to’. That was the basis of many win-win deals with Constantine’s successors and pretty much every reasonable European ruler, from Louis XIV to Napoleon, from Clovis to Mussolini, from Charlemagne to Franco.
To the wealthy, it promised: ‘give us donations and we will keep the workers quiet, telling the poor fellow that the next life will be luxury; and by the way we can intercede with God to offer you a fast track to heaven if you are interested.’
To the poor, it promised: ‘Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Obey the powerful and the rich, don’t kill other people (unless your king or priest asks you to), and your afterlife will be wonderful because Jesus loves you, yes you. He’s not showing it on a daily basis but that is part of a plan to fool the rich, hence the misery and suffering. But he really cares’.
To men, it promised: ‘Women are sinful and impure; they have always been witches and bitches (except your mum and the Virgin Mary). So it’s okay to beat your wife a bit. If you don’t know exactly why, she does.’
To barbaric tribes it said: ‘If you convert now you will be loved by Jesus and become friends of Rome (or Spain, or England). You can continue to worship your pagan fertility goddess provided you call her Virgin Mary (and don’t tell anyone I told you that). Make up your mind quickly ‘cause I have three other tribes to see today. If we don’t have an agreement you’ll have to deal with those soldiers behind me and, believe me, you really don’t want that.’
To the medieval knights / conquistadores it said: ‘Rather than wasting your time raping dirty farm girls in cold wetlands, killing each other when drunk and plotting against your king, why don’t you take a holiday in Palestine/America?
There you can:
• Free Jerusalem/America from the infidel,
• rape local hotties,
• indulge in sanctified rampage and blessed looting,
• come back full of gold to impress your mum and cousins,
• while we’ll make sure your wives behave in your absence.
PLUS:
• if you die over there, all your sins and atrocities will be written off and you’ll go direct to heaven!
AND ANYWAY:
• if you stay you’ll probably die from the plague next year
So what are you waiting for?!
To the Spanish, it said: ‘God is Spanish’. To the French, it said: ‘God is French’, etc. etc.
As one can see, the Christian church had a good word for everyone. It was capable of reaching out to every interest group. No wonder it thrived for so long, all around the world, in all segments of society.
Killing the father
Christianity was soon keen to forget its Jewish origins. You have to kill the father at some point. Later, from the Middle-Ages, Christians re-enforced its crowd-pleasing policy by introducing scapegoats and inner-enemies and distract people from real oppression. Jews – a religious minority that was found a bit everywhere - were an easy target. The rumour grew that ‘The Jews killed Jesus’. For centuries, no-one seemed to notice that the slogan was simply absurd. Perhaps Jews were not a random scapegoat after all – a self-made man is often ashamed of its origins. Anyway, that campaign was so successful that even individuals and rulers that were not very Christian embraced the new gizmo enthusiastically. That’s the secret of social networking and viral marketing: after a while people forget where and when they first heard about a slogan or a rumour. The Church didn’t need to confirm or deny officially that Jews had killed Jesus. It became conventional gossip.
Talking about Judaism, it’s interesting to notice that the inventors of mono-theism let their creature get away and ultimately turn against them. They were not able to retain intellectual property and the fantastic royalties that would have come in time. Perhaps they never saw that monotheism had global commercial potential. So much for the proverbial business skills of the Jewish people.
The Science challenge
Christianity however had to face many a challenge. For instance: science. In truth, Christianity picked the wrong fight with science. The bible was largely silent about it. Genesis, that Jewish myth, should perhaps not have been put into the credo. And where was the need for the Church to be so specific that the world had been created by God around -4,000 BC since no such date was in the Book. Similarly, the Bible said nothing about the shape of Earth or its position in the cosmos, so why bother and waste so much effort torturing scientists to hide the truth in physics or biology.
It was a lost battle in the long term. After having been adamant for centuries that the Bible narrative and the Church commentaries should be taken literally under penalty of death, the Church started to say, in the twentieth century, that we shouldn’t have taken it too seriously. ‘Yes, all right, Earth is not exactly the centre of the universe, even we suspected it. But after all who cares? The love of Jesus is the important thing. Okay we may have over-reacted when torturing those scientists but back then we didn’t want the ignorant crowd to be upset by such revelations’.
A balanced approach to science today is to have a ‘modernist’ pro-science stance for the wider public, while privately flattering the rank and file traditionalists. ‘Some of us still read the Bible literally? Well they may be a little enthusiastic that’s all. Besides the theory of evolution is just a theory isn’t it?’ You don’t want rogue Bible Belt nuts to steal your flock by keeping to principles you just officially abandoned. Throwing in blurry concepts like ‘intelligent design’ might be an efficient red herring to introduce confusion between natural selection and creationism.
Another challenge was recruitment. For many centuries, Christianity offered great job opportunities to the younger sons of the aristocracy. There were basically two careers tracks. Young cynical opportunists were able to rise quickly to the top – bishop or higher - and live in luxury. Poor but clever farmers’ sons also found a great way to escape a miserable life; through a remarkable scouting system the Church was quick at spotting youngsters with potential. Idealist nerds were also welcome, providing missionaries or honest-to-god, low-profile rural priests.
But nowadays rich kids and literate young men have much better career opportunities in financial services or consumer products. Poor black boys can become footballers. White trash can become reality TV stars. Applications are dropping and only ‘idealists’ are interested. And they can be a pain.
In an interesting historic loop, the Church is now back to being a minority, with a bigger proportion of employees sincerely dedicated to God and mankind, just as it was pre-Constantine. It does not mean disaster in business terms. Christianity has lost monopoly but remains legal. The classic product lifecycle theory tells us that a product nearing the end of its life and facing declining sales can still be profitable, simply because the brand is so strong that it requires little marketing investment. For instance, when the Pope visits the UK in September 2010, we called it a ‘State visit’ so all the logistics and security got paid by the British taxpayer, and Catholicism got tens of hours of free advertising on national channels, promoting Catholic schools and warning against ‘aggressive’ secularism. Yes secular democracies may have officially broken from the Church but there are still quite a lot of loopholes for clever marketers.
God is a full-time job
After 313 BC, Christians stopped being a club of gifted amateurs to embrace professionalism. They organised themselves as an army and a bureaucracy. Women
were excluded from any career in the church. One branch, the Catholics, demanded celibacy from their priest. Again that was a mixed option. Being forbidden to have any form of sexuality, no wife and no children, was not exactly great to maintain mental sanity and remain in the right mindset to advise everybody else on family and sexual issues.
Career priests of course have always managed to have a happy sex life undercover, but yet again it’s the idealists who suffered, those who insisted in taking the celibacy rule too seriously. Many of them developed frustration and perversion (chastity of course being the worst of all perversion). Commentators and the wider public are shocked at the apparent paradox that men of god were abusing children on a large scale, or covering for their colleagues doing it, for decades and centuries. But that was the natural yet unintended consequence of a very deliberate human resource policy. Ordinary men or priests are psychologically more likely to use prostitutes or – to the extreme - rape little girls when they are not capable or not allowed to have a normal sex life and family life. Fortunately, and despite all the idealists within, the church has kept the sense of solidarity and togetherness during the scandal, and generally doesn’t let the crowd or the police know about its dirty little secrets.
It is fascinating to see that Catholicism, unlike every other branch of Christianity, insists on male priesthood and celibacy, generating some bad press. I do believe however that the Catholic strategy is right. In the long term, all monotheist religions are going downhill but the more primitive and reactionary, the more likely one religion is to increase its market share in a declining market. They just have to keep their nerves. Forget about winning back the agnostics, refocus on your natural targets. Looking forward, male-exclusivity in priesthood will become increasingly attractive to frustrated men given the growing supremacy of women in many aspects of social life (education, health and soon enough politics).
Not only Catholicism must remain a gentlemen’s club, but I would even advise Catholics to develop their ‘unique selling proposition’ further and go back to all archaic traditions. Latin for instance. As George Brassens put it in a song called ‘Tempete dans un bénitier’ giving up Latin during masses was a terrible mistake, taken in a panic, a token to ‘modernity’ to try and accommodate the ridiculous fashion of the 50s and 60s. At least with Latin, there was a sense of mystery and awe. In French or English, a mass became just dull and pointless.
A promising start-up
Christianity started small, as one of the many tiny dodgy sects in the Middle East. A few guys wrote a biography of a man called ‘Jesus’ based on second or third hand testimonies, which became a global best seller. Actually they wrote conflicting stories but for simplicity let’s say it was one book. The most successful compilation became known as the New Testament.
The religion started to gain market share in the competitive Eastern Mediterranean market, especially in Greece. But the first big breakthrough came when the franchise arrived to Rome. It was an instant hit with the plebs, the women and the slaves, all demographics that had been largely ignored by marketers up to that point. Rome had a tradition of free market and religious tolerance: you could pick and worship any big or small god you’d fancy in the Greek-inspired Roman pantheon and immigrants were allowed to worship their ridiculous foreign gods, provided they didn’t question the official Roman gods. During the Empire, Romans got bored of their old-fashioned gods and became increasingly fond of foreign, exotic deities. Isis, in particular, a sexy skinny Egyptian goddess, was quite fashionable. However, the official Roman religious staff grew uncomfortable with the success of ‘Jesus’. How come people would prefer to worship some miserable Jewish guru who died two hundred years ago rather Mighty Jupiter or the many utility gods Rome had temples for? Worse: the followers of ‘Jesus’ who started to call themselves ‘Christians’, seemed to believe that there was only one god, their own, and no other. They argued that Jupiter, Ares, Aphrodite were lies, that it was ‘bad’ to worship the ancient gods. And finally that mix of foreigners and stinking plebs started questioning the social order. That was too much too quickly and Roman competition authorities promptly made the sect illegal.
Some creative Roman emperors who liked combining order and entertainment had Christians eaten alive by lions in public. That was over-reacting and it backfired badly. Decadent Romans had gone soft and were no longer so fond of public bloodshed. The gruesome execution of Christians attracted public sympathy and turned out to be the most fantastic PR platform for early Christianity (later in Christianity, Christians would organise their own martyrdom industry, by sending their most fanatical members to suicide missions in deep pagan territories). Every lion meal drove new recruits and soon there were simply too many Christians and not enough lions. So Roman authorities gradually gave up on killing them off. Besides Christians sympathies were now running everywhere: many upper class kids – perhaps brainwashed by their Irish or Polish nannies – became fans of Jesus. The new religion was also attractive to intellectuals as it incorporated some elements of fashionable Greek philosophy.
Key success factors
The second massive breakthrough came when Emperor Constantine made his coming out as a Christian and legalised Christianity in 313 BC (the ‘Constantinian Shift’). Soon after that, in 392 BC, Christianity became the official religion of the Empire, leapfrogging a ‘legal’ free market stage. The other religions, the old ones, all of them, became illegal in the Empire. Like Communism later, in a master stroke, Christianity went from underground activism to absolute power.
At that point, Christianity changed its nature forever and soon developed an approach that made it global, allowing it to convert many nations and outlive the Roman Empire.
To the powerful it promised ‘give us legal monopoly over religion and education, and we’ll provide soft power, making sure peasants pay their taxes to you and fight for you if axed to’. That was the basis of many win-win deals with Constantine’s successors and pretty much every reasonable European ruler, from Louis XIV to Napoleon, from Clovis to Mussolini, from Charlemagne to Franco.
To the wealthy, it promised: ‘give us donations and we will keep the workers quiet, telling the poor fellow that the next life will be luxury; and by the way we can intercede with God to offer you a fast track to heaven if you are interested.’
To the poor, it promised: ‘Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Obey the powerful and the rich, don’t kill other people (unless your king or priest asks you to), and your afterlife will be wonderful because Jesus loves you, yes you. He’s not showing it on a daily basis but that is part of a plan to fool the rich, hence the misery and suffering. But he really cares’.
To men, it promised: ‘Women are sinful and impure; they have always been witches and bitches (except your mum and the Virgin Mary). So it’s okay to beat your wife a bit. If you don’t know exactly why, she does.’
To barbaric tribes it said: ‘If you convert now you will be loved by Jesus and become friends of Rome (or Spain, or England). You can continue to worship your pagan fertility goddess provided you call her Virgin Mary (and don’t tell anyone I told you that). Make up your mind quickly ‘cause I have three other tribes to see today. If we don’t have an agreement you’ll have to deal with those soldiers behind me and, believe me, you really don’t want that.’
To the medieval knights / conquistadores it said: ‘Rather than wasting your time raping dirty farm girls in cold wetlands, killing each other when drunk and plotting against your king, why don’t you take a holiday in Palestine/America?
There you can:
• Free Jerusalem/America from the infidel,
• rape local hotties,
• indulge in sanctified rampage and blessed looting,
• come back full of gold to impress your mum and cousins,
• while we’ll make sure your wives behave in your absence.
PLUS:
• if you die over there, all your sins and atrocities will be written off and you’ll go direct to heaven!
AND ANYWAY:
• if you stay you’ll probably die from the plague next year
So what are you waiting for?!
To the Spanish, it said: ‘God is Spanish’. To the French, it said: ‘God is French’, etc. etc.
As one can see, the Christian church had a good word for everyone. It was capable of reaching out to every interest group. No wonder it thrived for so long, all around the world, in all segments of society.
Killing the father
Christianity was soon keen to forget its Jewish origins. You have to kill the father at some point. Later, from the Middle-Ages, Christians re-enforced its crowd-pleasing policy by introducing scapegoats and inner-enemies and distract people from real oppression. Jews – a religious minority that was found a bit everywhere - were an easy target. The rumour grew that ‘The Jews killed Jesus’. For centuries, no-one seemed to notice that the slogan was simply absurd. Perhaps Jews were not a random scapegoat after all – a self-made man is often ashamed of its origins. Anyway, that campaign was so successful that even individuals and rulers that were not very Christian embraced the new gizmo enthusiastically. That’s the secret of social networking and viral marketing: after a while people forget where and when they first heard about a slogan or a rumour. The Church didn’t need to confirm or deny officially that Jews had killed Jesus. It became conventional gossip.
Talking about Judaism, it’s interesting to notice that the inventors of mono-theism let their creature get away and ultimately turn against them. They were not able to retain intellectual property and the fantastic royalties that would have come in time. Perhaps they never saw that monotheism had global commercial potential. So much for the proverbial business skills of the Jewish people.
The Science challenge
Christianity however had to face many a challenge. For instance: science. In truth, Christianity picked the wrong fight with science. The bible was largely silent about it. Genesis, that Jewish myth, should perhaps not have been put into the credo. And where was the need for the Church to be so specific that the world had been created by God around -4,000 BC since no such date was in the Book. Similarly, the Bible said nothing about the shape of Earth or its position in the cosmos, so why bother and waste so much effort torturing scientists to hide the truth in physics or biology.
It was a lost battle in the long term. After having been adamant for centuries that the Bible narrative and the Church commentaries should be taken literally under penalty of death, the Church started to say, in the twentieth century, that we shouldn’t have taken it too seriously. ‘Yes, all right, Earth is not exactly the centre of the universe, even we suspected it. But after all who cares? The love of Jesus is the important thing. Okay we may have over-reacted when torturing those scientists but back then we didn’t want the ignorant crowd to be upset by such revelations’.
A balanced approach to science today is to have a ‘modernist’ pro-science stance for the wider public, while privately flattering the rank and file traditionalists. ‘Some of us still read the Bible literally? Well they may be a little enthusiastic that’s all. Besides the theory of evolution is just a theory isn’t it?’ You don’t want rogue Bible Belt nuts to steal your flock by keeping to principles you just officially abandoned. Throwing in blurry concepts like ‘intelligent design’ might be an efficient red herring to introduce confusion between natural selection and creationism.
Another challenge was recruitment. For many centuries, Christianity offered great job opportunities to the younger sons of the aristocracy. There were basically two careers tracks. Young cynical opportunists were able to rise quickly to the top – bishop or higher - and live in luxury. Poor but clever farmers’ sons also found a great way to escape a miserable life; through a remarkable scouting system the Church was quick at spotting youngsters with potential. Idealist nerds were also welcome, providing missionaries or honest-to-god, low-profile rural priests.
But nowadays rich kids and literate young men have much better career opportunities in financial services or consumer products. Poor black boys can become footballers. White trash can become reality TV stars. Applications are dropping and only ‘idealists’ are interested. And they can be a pain.
In an interesting historic loop, the Church is now back to being a minority, with a bigger proportion of employees sincerely dedicated to God and mankind, just as it was pre-Constantine. It does not mean disaster in business terms. Christianity has lost monopoly but remains legal. The classic product lifecycle theory tells us that a product nearing the end of its life and facing declining sales can still be profitable, simply because the brand is so strong that it requires little marketing investment. For instance, when the Pope visits the UK in September 2010, we called it a ‘State visit’ so all the logistics and security got paid by the British taxpayer, and Catholicism got tens of hours of free advertising on national channels, promoting Catholic schools and warning against ‘aggressive’ secularism. Yes secular democracies may have officially broken from the Church but there are still quite a lot of loopholes for clever marketers.
God is a full-time job
After 313 BC, Christians stopped being a club of gifted amateurs to embrace professionalism. They organised themselves as an army and a bureaucracy. Women
were excluded from any career in the church. One branch, the Catholics, demanded celibacy from their priest. Again that was a mixed option. Being forbidden to have any form of sexuality, no wife and no children, was not exactly great to maintain mental sanity and remain in the right mindset to advise everybody else on family and sexual issues.
Career priests of course have always managed to have a happy sex life undercover, but yet again it’s the idealists who suffered, those who insisted in taking the celibacy rule too seriously. Many of them developed frustration and perversion (chastity of course being the worst of all perversion). Commentators and the wider public are shocked at the apparent paradox that men of god were abusing children on a large scale, or covering for their colleagues doing it, for decades and centuries. But that was the natural yet unintended consequence of a very deliberate human resource policy. Ordinary men or priests are psychologically more likely to use prostitutes or – to the extreme - rape little girls when they are not capable or not allowed to have a normal sex life and family life. Fortunately, and despite all the idealists within, the church has kept the sense of solidarity and togetherness during the scandal, and generally doesn’t let the crowd or the police know about its dirty little secrets.
It is fascinating to see that Catholicism, unlike every other branch of Christianity, insists on male priesthood and celibacy, generating some bad press. I do believe however that the Catholic strategy is right. In the long term, all monotheist religions are going downhill but the more primitive and reactionary, the more likely one religion is to increase its market share in a declining market. They just have to keep their nerves. Forget about winning back the agnostics, refocus on your natural targets. Looking forward, male-exclusivity in priesthood will become increasingly attractive to frustrated men given the growing supremacy of women in many aspects of social life (education, health and soon enough politics).
Not only Catholicism must remain a gentlemen’s club, but I would even advise Catholics to develop their ‘unique selling proposition’ further and go back to all archaic traditions. Latin for instance. As George Brassens put it in a song called ‘Tempete dans un bénitier’ giving up Latin during masses was a terrible mistake, taken in a panic, a token to ‘modernity’ to try and accommodate the ridiculous fashion of the 50s and 60s. At least with Latin, there was a sense of mystery and awe. In French or English, a mass became just dull and pointless.
18 septembre 2010
Catholic PR on the BBC
My complaint letter to the BBC
As a licence fee payer and a citizen, I was disappointed by the BBC’s coverage of the Pope in Britain. I watched large bits of Friday morning’s coverage and I was amazed how much coverage the catholic event took and how little debate or information there was. The tone of the programme was quite like the relaxed and consensual in-situ coverage of a pop music festival. The only people interviewed were children or adult catholic activists and they were typically asked one controversial question and that was it. To a question about the cover-up of child abuse by catholic priest, one activist he had been submitted himself to some of it, but that ‘there was healing’ in the holy presence of the pope. Such a shocking assertion should at least have led to a clarification question from the journalist. (by the way, the term ‘activist’ is not used by your journalists to refer to catholic activists, they are just ‘christians’; muslim individual speaking for their faith, or secular individual speaking against clergy are, by contrast, referred to as activists)
As a media, you may consider that the pope’s visit is a big event worth large coverage and I accept that, although the status of Vatican as a State, and considering the visit of that foreign clergyman as a ‘State visit’ is to me personally a joke. Anyway that might have justified broadcasting meetings with the Queen and government officials, or even let’s say a speech. But catholicism is also a business. At the least, no-one can deny that Catholic schools in this country are a successful and profitable business. Your Friday morning broadcast was, for more than an hour, a huge free advertisement and PR for a private organisation, the catholic education system, funded by taxpayers. With lots of cute little kids in their cute little uniforms telling the camera how excited they were to see the pope. If the BBC was supposed to cover a ‘State visit’ then the rallies with catholic children should not have been covered more than, say a foreign president meeting his fellow countrymen at the embassy i.e. in passing. As ‘head of State’, leader of one particular religion and CEO of catholic schools, the pope must have been delighted by the BBC coverage.
As a licence fee payer and a citizen, I was disappointed by the BBC’s coverage of the Pope in Britain. I watched large bits of Friday morning’s coverage and I was amazed how much coverage the catholic event took and how little debate or information there was. The tone of the programme was quite like the relaxed and consensual in-situ coverage of a pop music festival. The only people interviewed were children or adult catholic activists and they were typically asked one controversial question and that was it. To a question about the cover-up of child abuse by catholic priest, one activist he had been submitted himself to some of it, but that ‘there was healing’ in the holy presence of the pope. Such a shocking assertion should at least have led to a clarification question from the journalist. (by the way, the term ‘activist’ is not used by your journalists to refer to catholic activists, they are just ‘christians’; muslim individual speaking for their faith, or secular individual speaking against clergy are, by contrast, referred to as activists)
As a media, you may consider that the pope’s visit is a big event worth large coverage and I accept that, although the status of Vatican as a State, and considering the visit of that foreign clergyman as a ‘State visit’ is to me personally a joke. Anyway that might have justified broadcasting meetings with the Queen and government officials, or even let’s say a speech. But catholicism is also a business. At the least, no-one can deny that Catholic schools in this country are a successful and profitable business. Your Friday morning broadcast was, for more than an hour, a huge free advertisement and PR for a private organisation, the catholic education system, funded by taxpayers. With lots of cute little kids in their cute little uniforms telling the camera how excited they were to see the pope. If the BBC was supposed to cover a ‘State visit’ then the rallies with catholic children should not have been covered more than, say a foreign president meeting his fellow countrymen at the embassy i.e. in passing. As ‘head of State’, leader of one particular religion and CEO of catholic schools, the pope must have been delighted by the BBC coverage.
14 août 2010
Premiere League - The 2009-2010 season
The new Premiere League season 2010-2011 starts this week-end. Good opportunity to look back on last year. My last post mid-January was to rejoice at the brief glimpse of Arsenal on top of the table. It was just before Arsenal lost again to ManU and Chelsea. We were expecting Arsenal without a valid striker to struggle against the Big Two but hoping that they would lose points to the small four in the last third of the season. And they did, beyond expectations, dropped points to Aston Villa, Everton, City and Spurs while Arsenal made six wins in a row against Liverpool, Sunderland, Hull, Burnley, Stoke and West Ham to come back to two points behind the leaders with easier fixtures coming up (MU and Chelsea playing each other in particular). In truth, many of the wins in that Arsenal series came in the dying minutes and not in very convincing way.
Then came another 'Birmingham moment' two years after that fatal February day (the Eduardo injury, the late equalizer and the Gaslas nervous breakdown). Poor game, Nasri opens the score ten minutes from time but then a stupid mistake in the box and a draw. And Fabregas gets injured for the rest of the season. We then won home to Wolves in the last minute, to reach 71 points – 9 more than the previous season - but the impetus was lost. For match-day 34 against in-form Spurs , Arsenal was missing four or five of its most important players: Fabregas, Arshavin, Song, Gallas, Van Persie (who came in, returning from six month injury, in the last 20 minutes). Spurs were favourite and won 2-1 logically. It was probably over at that point. But the final blow came at Wigan (match 35); Arsenal was leading 2-0 after 80 minutes and then conceded three goals to lose 3-2. Then a goalless draw to City at home and another defeat at Blackburn. In the end, Arsenal finished third with 75 points, only three more than the previous season, and 11 points behind Chelsea.
To be honest, it was a good performance to come back into contention, up to match-day 33 or 34 after having lost home and away – and so badly - to both ManU and Chelsea. But, with another batch of key players injuries in the last stand, the team was toothless and out of steam.
So what about the new season ahead? Never so few transfers. Top teams will remain essentially the same, only one year older, with minor additions: Chamakh and hopefully a new goalkeeper (Given, Schwarzer?) for Arsenal, Hernandez for ManU, Chelsea and Liverpool swapping Cole and Benayoun. Only City has, again, significantly strengthened the squad. One year older might be too old for ManU but perhaps Valencia, Nani, Anderson and Evans will raise their games to take over ageing Giggs, Ferdinand and Scholes.
Everybody expects City to be a contender for the title but I think Liverpool (16/1 to win for some bookmakers) should not be written off. With key players remaining and the excellent Hodgson as a new manager, with no pressure and low expectations, I believe they will surprise.
As for Arsenal, Fabregas is staying one more year. Barca made a £30m offer but Arsenal rejected it and that was it. Fabregas has consistently been very clear that he wants to go to Barcelone at some point but he realized he was not on top of their shopping list this year and in the meantime he still likes playing for Wenger. Let’s hope the World Champion and Arsenal captain will instil confidence and maturity in the team and will find extra motivation in the fact that it may well be his last year in London.
To be honest, it was a good performance to come back into contention, up to match-day 33 or 34 after having lost home and away – and so badly - to both ManU and Chelsea. But, with another batch of key players injuries in the last stand, the team was toothless and out of steam.
So what about the new season ahead? Never so few transfers. Top teams will remain essentially the same, only one year older, with minor additions: Chamakh and hopefully a new goalkeeper (Given, Schwarzer?) for Arsenal, Hernandez for ManU, Chelsea and Liverpool swapping Cole and Benayoun. Only City has, again, significantly strengthened the squad. One year older might be too old for ManU but perhaps Valencia, Nani, Anderson and Evans will raise their games to take over ageing Giggs, Ferdinand and Scholes.
Everybody expects City to be a contender for the title but I think Liverpool (16/1 to win for some bookmakers) should not be written off. With key players remaining and the excellent Hodgson as a new manager, with no pressure and low expectations, I believe they will surprise.
As for Arsenal, Fabregas is staying one more year. Barca made a £30m offer but Arsenal rejected it and that was it. Fabregas has consistently been very clear that he wants to go to Barcelone at some point but he realized he was not on top of their shopping list this year and in the meantime he still likes playing for Wenger. Let’s hope the World Champion and Arsenal captain will instil confidence and maturity in the team and will find extra motivation in the fact that it may well be his last year in London.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)