When does something succeed? Obviously that is WAY up for debate and depends on many factors and frankly, just out right depends what you’re talking about. In this case, that something is a web page – something people interact with or otherwise use for a gain.

The more time I spend in the world of making web sites for profit, the more I find myself turned off by how people treat and expect results. Of course, I think it’s just a harsh realization that I have trouble understanding – the definition of success it seems is if the item (in my case, web services) get sold/sponsored…that they make their money back. Now, I’m not so naive that I don’t know that’s not a goal and one measure of success, but the final sale is not the end of the road.

How many times have you had to deal with any customer service? Whether you bought a product and needed help, or had to return something, or needed to take your car into service… You’ve already purchased their product but half of the return on investment is what you get AFTER you purchase the item.

Customer satisfaction is by far a better determinate of success than covering your cost. Do people use it? Do they get what they want? Do they like it? The end consumers don’t care what it cost YOU to create or deliver. They just want a product that delivers a good experience and makes them happy. It does make a difference how people perceive your products and services. That’s how you build credibility and loyalty. It’s better to have a loyal following than cover your costs.

Now there is a breaking point, obviously. You can’t run your business/service that way forever, but if you don’t have any loyalty (or very little) then you can’t just take joy in that costs were covered and go home wiping the sweat from your brow. It’s very unsettling (and borderline unrewarding) for me to make things that are good all to just cover costs and then aren’t look back on or followed up on for reason whatsoever. I’ve made many web products and interactions all in an attempt to sell to a sponsor. They were all sold thanks to the talent of a salesperson, but once they were sold there was no follow up. There’s no wondering if people actually came and got something out of their experience. In fact, there’s seemingly little thought to whether the project will benefit people BEFORE it’s even made. The only thought is, “is there enough meat to sell it,” because it doesn’t matter if people use it or not.

Now, I actually put most of this blame on the CLIENT, not the salesperson doing the pitching. It’s the client’s job to ask for results. If I’m a client and I’m paying $3000 for a week’s worth of sponsorship of a widget or service, I’d want to know if it was worth it. If I just want eyeballs I’ll buy a billboard or a block in the newspaper. Products and services, like web pages, offer interaction that can reach consumers at level not offered by “eyeball advertising.” If the client doesn’t ask for results, why should the outlet care about results? They shouldn’t – they’re just playing the game. I can’t say I blame them, but it ends up just being pure laziness (and greed).

If you’re reading this and buy advertising or invest in any sort of marketing campaign – always ask for results afterwards. Don’t settle for the numbers they promise you or say they can deliver. Make sure they do deliver and make sure your name isn’t getting associated with a crap product or service. Don’t settle for just eyeballs. If you take it seriously, your ad outlet will take it seriously, and in turn your customers will take you seriously.

It takes money to make money – but if you put more effort into even the smallest projects and lose money, you’ll be able to make MORE money without needing more resources later.

So Google tells me today is the 50th birthday of the Lego brick. I think Google’s coolness factor just went up a half a notch. Most people, including myself, would have blown by this Monday completely unaware that today was a landmark day. In fact, I claim that Lego is the most important toy of all time. Period.

Lego is truly the toy that everyone can enjoy. Lego knows no gender and no age. There are only a handful of other toys that can make that claim that also deliver the goods when it comes to fun. I think everyone I know has played and enjoyed Lego at some point in there life. Lego bricks are the one thing that I can still enjoy as an adult and not get made fun of…if anything, people want to join in. It’s shame we all don’t have more Legos to play with – they’re a great desk toy and great and getting out those left over creative juices.

I probably “wasted” more time with Legos as a child than any other toy, including my GI Joes and quite possibly video games (up to a point). Legos could become anything. They were medieval castles, spaceships, fire engines, racecars….you name it, it could be made from Legos. Frankly, I think an office set made of Legos would be really cool. I think an entire wall of Lego base would be awesome too. You could do all sorts of stuff with it.

I’m sure you don’t need any more convincing that Lego is the ultimate tool, but one of the most popular articles here at the Toast is the one I wrote about the Lego catapult I built at my last job. People are seemingly fascinated by how it works and that Lego could do more than just make a fort or spaceship. I must admit, shy of the 3-foot spaceship I made when I was in grade school, the catapult is my greatest Lego accomplishment.

So if you don’t have at least a small pack of Lego at home or at work – shame on you – walk your ass to Target and plop down the $10 to buy even the simplest set. Get the car that looks cool, or the pirate ship with the shark. It doesn’t matter. But it and build away…I recommend using the model sheet first, then making your own creations.

Lego. Denmark’s great gift to the world. Thanks, Denmark.

Some happy Lego links to brighten your day – enjoy.

• Lego ads, one and two. They’ll make you smile.
• Awesome Lego screensaver
• Literally hours of enjoyment at Flickr

I’ve been working in Radio for just about a year now and how a radio station works is definitely something unique. Or at least it seems like it. Maybe it’s just me and maybe it’s just the (few) other jobs I’ve had as a comparison, but in Radio you can apparently get paid for everything. I’ve been told it’s normal that you can nickel and dime the company for just about every little thing you do – on top of what your make for base.

There’s a current/upcoming project that involves some audio production for a podcast. It’s actually more re-purposing pre-recorded audio, but it needs to be cut and edited nonetheless. Now, if I was given the raw audio and told it needed to be podcast-ready for a project, I would say, “No big deal,” it’s part of my job. I may not like to cut the audio and might not be the best at it, but I’d do it because it falls under what I do as my job. I’ve already made several videos for the web site and that took a lot of time to find the right footage, splice it together, find music…all that. But again, I just chalked it up as part of my job as web site manager/editor/developer/designer.

But “real” Radio people want – and can – get paid to do anything they don’t think is their job. In the case of the podcast audio, rather than just cutting the audio and passing it along, someone asks and gets paid extra to cut that audio – a “production fee.” We also had another audio feature that involved interviewing athletes. As a reporter, you might think interviewing and preparing audio is part of the job. I don’t know for sure, but I’d bet the people working on that project squeezed out some cash for that work as well, a “talent fee” with some added production fees.

Now Radio DJs also get paid extra when they make off-hours appearances. This makes more sense to me because it’s not within normal business hours and can happen on any day of the week. These appearances could be considered just “part of their job” too, but since in many cases these events happen during what would otherwise be personal time, I can let it slide in many cases. But when you’re in the office when you’d otherwise be in the office anyway and doing something that directly benefits you regardless, do you really need to get paid extra?

I guess I’m just wondering what happened to doing things just because “it’s part of your job?” Do you really to get paid for every little thing you do?

Maybe that’s the wrong attitude to take because getting extra for everything would be good, but in some ways it’s more hassle, and I imagine it really slows down productivity and efficiency. I mean, under this type of thinking if someone sends me a logo and it’s too big, should I get a “resizing fee?” Afterall, it’s not technically my job to resize images I get from clients. How about the videos? I should get a “production fee” too, no? Maybe I should, but I don’t need it and am not going to ask for it because it’s just part of what I do. It’s my job.

I tend to be weary of people who are hesitant to do things until they find out what’s in it for them. It’s either something you want to do or not. We’re not mercenaries. And you’re going to get much better quality out of people who care than those that are just doing it for the money. I’m not saying people that care should or need to do things for free – far from it. Despite me liking my job I wouldn’t do it for free. But I believe there is an obvious line between what is your job and what is not, and it’s not a fine line and frankly it’s not that blurry either.

Under this supposed mercenary model, you’re paying someone just to be a body in place for a time, and then you’re paying them EXTRA for their skills. Last time I checked I’m getting paid for my skills, not to just wait around until someone needs me to do something and then charge them more just to lift a finger.

I’m not sure if Radio is unique in this fashion, or if I’ve just not worked in enough places and this is the way things are. Or maybe I’m just the idiot that doesn’t chase after every last dollar.

The fact is the computer is NOT the center of the living room. I know the great plan in the sky is to have a computer as the hub of our entertainment but it’s just not happening. It’s been promised for years now and the closest we come is with video game console. Systems like my Wii let me surf the web, play games, and other entertaining things. The personal computer is not there, which is too bad because it obviously trumps any console in terms of power and abilities.

But, as usual, Apple thinks different. Today Apple announced, amongst other things, that we can now rent movies through iTunes. We can pay $2 to download a movie to our computer and it self-destructs in 24-hours. While I like the idea of things self-destructing and not requiring me to do anything, there lies one big problem with this theory – we don’t watch movies on our computers!

I’m far from the minority in that I prefer to watch movies on my TV in the living room. Not only is my screen bigger, but I have a couch, pillows, coffee table, and other such luxuries that make watching movies, well, enjoyable. For the most part, our computers are still confined to specific rooms within our houses. We have offices, or dens. Many have laptops, but that’s far from convenient when you want to get comfortable and watch a movie with a loved one.

Computers will never be the center of the living room until two things happen. One, they need to be as compatible with television as video games are. You plug, you play. Two, non-entertainment computer functions need to look and work well on a television, namely things like e-mail, documents, and all that other stuff that doesn’t earn you high scores. Until these conditions are met we will never have a single device that serves all our needs.

Right now you can your PC to your TV with additional devices, software, and wireless networks. All that needs to go if it’s going to work. If I could download movies to my Wii and use the remote to watch movies on TV that way? Then yes, I’d be very interested. And if consoles like xBox an PS3 head that way then I will be jealous. Of course, I can already get movies with my cable box for the same price and it’s already there. See…there’s some kinks to be worked out still in order to get consumers on-board.

Fact is we don’t want to watch movies on our 19″ monitors with half-ass speakers in a tiny room with a office chair. We want to watch movies on big screens with lots of speakers while laying on a couch flopping chips into our mouth. I’ve come across this same discussion when it comes to video games too. People are getting Guitar Hero for the PC and I just can’t imagine trying to play any video game (alone or with others) in my office squinting at a computer monitor.

I applaud Apple for the good ol’ college try, but I don’t forsee it making much impact overall. Their iPhones and iPods may be the shit right now, but movie rentals certainly will not (and neither will AppleTV). It’s just too foreign to people – we’re still not tech savvy enough to understand why we should drop $200 on a box that lets us download movies when I can use my cable box for almost free.

But to Apple’s credit, I cheer them for eliminating the CD/DVD drive from their newest model laptop. They managed to phase out the floppy disk successfully and I don’t see any reason why ROM drives won’t follow. When was the last time you needed a CD or DVD in your computer? The only time I need them is to play games. Other than that, I move files with USB drives and through e-mail and web sites. If lopping off a ROM drive can save me $50 then so be it. Of course, the industry will have to follow suit and do better at offering content and goods as downloads.

Tell me if this plot sounds familiar – A robot from the future has gone into the past to kill a teenager that will become important in the future, and to help, another robot from the future has come back to help said teenager. We’ve seen it before, twice actually, or three times if you count hard. And this time there’s no real difference. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles is the classic Terminator story sanitized for primetime television. Apparently rehashing a story that is now 23-years-old is supposed suffice in lieu of my absent “24″.

I’m a half-Terminator fan. I like the idea and the concept behind the story. I hated the first Terminator but loved T2. The third movie was just a farce and we’ll just have to see if the fourth movie can bring Terminator out of the gutter. As far as this TV show is concerned, I’ll just have to wait to see if it gets better. This first episode has me intrigued so I’ll probably keep watching, and since I’m a fan of the story I’ll probably watch all season. But I’ll probably watch it more so because it fits in good with my Monday TV viewing schedule: Gladiators at 8p, Terminator at 9p, then wrestling. Damn well close to the ultimate Man Monday.

This first episode drops us off after T2 but before T3. John Connor and his mom are on the run from The Terminator, although not in Arnold form but as just some big, tough guy. And of course we have the “good” terminator, this time in the form of a teenager girl. The best part though, is that we travel from 1999 to 2007 in the lightning bubble that makes time travel possible. Neat.

As before, the ultimate goal of the Connors is the rid the world of Skynet, the super AI computer that is responsible for the end of mankind. No doubt the bad Terminators will be on his tail why the good Terminator does what she can to fend them off. We’ll see how it goes. But I’m guessing at some point all Terminators end up bad and the Connors have to use the human cunning to survive. But let’s remember the reason Terminator is cool is because of the Terminator, not the humans.

The production is pretty decent considering this is not the movies. It all comes down to the story. Part of me feels like we’ve whipped this horse to the point where you can’t make any more glue. But we’ll keep trying. It might have been better if they had let the Terminator franchise lay low for a while and then bring it back with a new story, an new off-shoot all together, or a reboot.

Watch the show if you want to live…or kill an hour.

Since I started getting paid to work, I’ve always gone back and fourth with what to call myself, professionally, that is. I’ve called myself a “designer,”  a “programmer,” and a “developer.” In some cases in an attempt to convey a lot at once I’ve done, “designer/developer.” Those of you that know me, what would you tell people I am? If you had to introduce me, what would you tell them?

Shy of that, I found out today I’m a designer. I’ll be changing my resume and portfolio to say “designer.” Sure, I develop and program, but after today I’ve come to the conclusion designer suits me best. Why? Because today I got mad when I saw some very piss poor design, and the element being designed had no immediate bearing on me or my work. It was really just horrible design in just about every way possible.

I’m not one that goes out and talks about how good I am at anything – except maybe some video games – but when it comes to design and art I rarely consider what I do that good. It really depends what you put it next to. However, this was one of those times when I had no problems expressing my discontent.

This is an ad for my radio station that is going to get printed in a periodical. I saw the ad and just went nuts. I couldn’t believe someone would make such poor design choices. Slightly miffed, I chose to prove to whoever cared to listen that good design is not hard. I took a brief 20 minutes and whipped up a ad that fit the same space and contained the same information. Maybe it’s just me, but the purpose of an ad is to communicate and thus entice. But let’s look at the evidence, shall we?

Below is a PDF that shows the ads side-by-side. The as-is ad on the left (the one that will get printed), and my 20-minute redo job on the right.

Which one is communicates more clearly?
Which one is easier to read?
Which one doesn’t make your eyes bleed?

I know not everyone has an eye for design, colors, or what have you. But this ad was made by someone with “designer” after their name. I honestly think Stevie Wonder could have made better design choices. And what made me even more upset was just the fact that there were several people that approved the design. Sure, I blame the designer, but I put just as much blame – if not more – on the person above them that said, “that looks good, pass it on.” This ad should have never seen the light of day.

So I now know I’m a designer because I get passionate about design. In this case, poor design…but I’ll go on wonderfully about good design when I see it too. I like programming too…I spent five years making a living as a programmer, but I find myself getting more excited over design (good or bad) than I do programming. I’m just a guy that likes the presentation of the end result. Programming is about nuts and bolts, which requires some degree of design itself, but the thing that makes a difference to the public is how it looks (which effects how it functions).

I’m more likely to skimp and cut corners with programming. I don’t cut corners with design. Thus, I’m a designer.

So what are you?

Monday at work started out with a debate about the rebirth of American Gladiator’s. I was clearly outnumbered in thinking the new American Gladiators was entertaining. The arguments were the hosts were horrible, the players were scripted, and the Gladiators were annoying and gimmicky. OK, fine. But my retort is then, “did you not watch Gladiators the first time around?” There’s no difference.

The only difference between the Gladiators of old and the Gladiators of new is fire and water. Literally. Instead of falling onto fluffy stunt pads, they now fall into a pool of water. And to spice up the “Eliminator” they added some fire…on water…under which players must swim. Otherwise, all the games you remember from the first time around are there. They’ve added a few new ones and tweaked a few old ones, but all in all the games are exactly as you remember and like them – fast and corny.

 The Gladiators are all new. It seems there are fewer of them than originally, but I think it’s a good idea to have constant Gladiators instead of changing them up. Ultimately the crowd needs to get behind the Gladiators, not the Average Joe players. For those people that said Gladiators never had gimmicks need to hit up ESPN Classic and watch some old Gladiators. Just the fact that the Gladiators have alter egos is gimmick enough. And being a popular Gladiator is all about being memorable. If I had the choice of being a memorable Gladiator or a good Gladiator, I’d pick remembered. Sure, stats last forever, but people really talk about the people that make an impression in person. People remember passion, charisma, and gimmicks – it doesn’t matter how good you are at what you do. One new Gladiator is called Wolf and every response out of his mouth is a literal howl. Annoying? Probably. Memorable? Certainly.

Now the hosts…Hulk Hogan and Laila Ali…that is where I agree with the haters. I love Hulk Hogan, but Hogan is far from exciting in his new role as co-host. Hulk still has some charisma left in his 24″ pythons, but unless he’s in control of what’s going on he can’t deliver like we want him to. Ms. Ali is just out right unexciting. At least Hulk acts like he’s excited for the players and Gladiators. Frankly, I think the old formula of have ex-pro football players and commentators makes more sense and sounds better. I’m glad there is now less commentary during the events, but if the new Gladiators has to change the formula anywhere, it is definitely with the hosting.

And when it comes to the players being scripted…please…once again, did you not watch the old Gladiators? The show has always played up the story of the Average Joes. The Marine that fought our country…the firefighter that saves lives…the cop that saved a child…the guy overcoming health problems…they were all there in ’94 and they’re all back in ’08. So no, I don’t think their lives are scripted. But I do think the producers of the show carefully choose which people they pick as contestants. Much like any other game show, it only works well if the players themselves are exciting and interesting. Nobody likes watching boring, flatfooted, ugly people – it doesn’t matter if it’s Price is Right or American Gladiators. The only reason to cheer for the Average Joes is because of their story, otherwise we really don’t care about them.

So the new Gladiators is good Gladiators. It’s essentially the same thing and I think it’s what TV needs now. Something entertaining that is light hearted but full of action. I compare it to being accessible pro wrestling. Many people don’t like and can’t get into pro wrestling because it’s way over the top and scripted. OK…so we’ll give you American Gladiators that has all the glamour and muscles, but we’ll throw in normal people to prove it’s not scripted. It worked for five years before, I see no reason why it can’t work for another five.

…and as a side note, ratings for American Gladiators on Sunday night did WAY better than I expected. American Gladiators pulled in about 8 the entire two hours to show a not-too-distant third place. Desperate Housewives won the ratings at 9p (14+) but Gladiators beat the debut of the Sex and The City rip-off on ABC. I was expecting Gladiators to get a 5 or lower, but if the ratings have any bearing, it means more people were ready for Gladiators as much as I was…and it’s good sign that there will be a second season. We can only hope.