I GOT SOMETHING TO SAYYY....

Sometimes I’ll be angry. Sometimes I’ll be wistful. Sometimes I’ll just point out TV shows I watched. Sometimes,I’ll be woefully late with plaudits for a noteworthy story I read. Bonus: You continue to learn more about me, the writer, which helps my ego and keeps you coming back for more. #Hint.

After the jump: Metallica!, Southwest Airlines, Yankee Candles for real men and This Week in Duh: More Fun With Financial Planning!

Metallica. Rolling Stone anointed Metallica as the “Big Summer Band” or something in a special “Big Summer Issue” which might actually be the Most Rolling Stone Thing Ever. No one – not even the most ardent Metallica fans – would tell you that the men in black still carry the same weight as their thunderous riffs and bombastic drum solos back in the 1980s and 1990s.

But Metallica knows this. They’re aware. That alone makes them sort of cool and sort of relevant. Almost mature, if you will. Eight years removed from the gripping documentary Some Kind of Monster and the personal demons it wrought and excised, the band knows their place in history and their role in currency.

So this summer, they’re playing the entire The Black Album and Ride the Lightning in sequence, in entirety – or reverse entirety, to close with “Enter Sandman” — at several tour dates. Scoff if you will, but I can think of almost nothing as cool as this. Cultural force in the 1980s, weightroom staple in the 1990s, now they’re old, wise and mature. Better to burn out? Nah.

And since you asked, here’s the odds I would attend a Metallica show depending on album setlist in sequence:

• St. Anger. 1,000,000,000 to 1.
• Death Magnetic. 2000 to 1. (Surprisingly pretty good.)
• ReLoad. 1000 to 1
• Kill ‘Em All. 100 to 1
• Load. 50 to 1 (Shut up, I waited in line all night for it in 1996.)
• Garage Days EP (1988). 25 to 1. (“I KILLED YOUR BABY TODAY.”)
• Black. 10 to 1
• Lightning. 5 to 1
• Justice. 3 to 1.
• Puppets. 3 to 2.

Summer Travel Questions. Airfares and bag fees, hotel discounts and vacation rentals, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Chicago – they’re all on my mind as I plot work, tag-along and pleasure trips for the summer. Just like you, I’m always searching for an airfare deal. Not only do I check Kayak and Priceline, I’m forced to check Southwest.

Not forced, per se. But I always do. It’s no surprise, they’re supposedly cheap and friendly. In fact, Lifehacker and Consumerist each pointed to yet another survey Southwest topped: Reward Miles.

Southwest doesn’t win all these subjective surveys simply on quality. For some reason, we’re all predisposed to think of them as the friendliest, easiest and best. They’re a credit union to American’s bank. A stunning example of grassroots and mass media PR, ingenious advertising, and fantastic branding, Southwest always reigns supreme in the customer’s mind. Every management textbook published between 1996 and 2000 included a chapter on Southwest. I imagine each successive Consumer Reports survey indicates Southwest is best. (Update: Yup.)

My question: Is it? While other airlines instituted bag fees, did Southwest not jack up trip fare? (Sample KC to Chicago fare in 2009: $120. Now: $240.)  Is their website – separate from travel aggregators – easier to use? (REPORT: Not on your life.)

So why the continued Southwest loyalty? How do they do it?

Why does it not say "Yankee Mandle?" Feels like a missed opportunity.

Wish this room smelled like a football, bro. In part to keep pace with Dr. Pepper 10 – the cola for DUDES, Yankee Candle launched “man-inspired scents.”

That’s right, for $20, you won’t earn a sideways glance from the cashier at Target, who totally thinks you’re a pussy for buying a Lavender Lace candle and a case of Diet Dr. Pepper, which is for girls, Sally.

Seriously, shut up, Dr. Pepper.

Yankee Candle benefits from the novelty; it was enough to get the attention of snarky bloggers and snarky empires. I learned about these from three separate giggly Facebook friends, honestly. But as you know, almost always, any PR is good PR, even when it includes sarcastic, wink-wink jokes. (Especially in the cutthroat candle industry!)

But who’s really buying this stuff? I guess I could believe a simpleton buying Dr. Pepper 10, convincing himself the taste is good because of the tough-guy ad he saw. I cannot convince myself that even meatheads want their apartments to smell like freshly-mown grass or a 2×4. Seriously, guys, you’re not a loser if you use a Macintosh Yankee Candle to prep your living room for dates. You might even (gasp) like the scent.

TIP: Don't do this.

This Week In Duh. More financial planning tips for those of you unable to spell finansial financial! From LinkedIn (we just learned how to use this last week, thanks to this guy.)

These are five tips that may or may not have been covered in your second-grade field trip to the bank. (You got to go in the vault! It was awesome.)  Anyway, they lead off with the first: “The key is to live on less than you earn. Leave yourself some wiggle room so you don’t spend up to or above your limit. On your next pay check, try to save more and spend less.” From there, they go RIGHT INTO the soft sale, asking you to find yourself a financial planner. (Once again, I’m re-evaluating my career choices.)

• Metallica: The Biggest Bang [Rolling Stone]
• Five Financial Planning Tips for 20somethings [Financial-Planning via LinkedIn]
• Survey Finds Best and Worst Sites for Redeeming Travel Miles [Consumerist, Lifehacker]
• Your Favorite Frequent Flier Program [Lifehacker]
• The best rewards card for travel [Lifehacker]
• Man candles (Mandles?) now available, man-spired by man. [Yankee Candle]

Don't try to call this a "small," mister. It's not even a cup! It's a Venti Chalise. Or something.

Quick! What’s the reason for Starbucks’ success? Ubiquity of stores? Nope. Recognizable brand? Nope. Higher caffeine amounts? Nope. It’s all related to efficiency of processes!

That sounds way boring, I know. But it’s true, according to a recent book. It’s also exciting, and definitely a rock-solid correlation!

(I forgot to warn you to set your cynic’s alert to high. But off we go!)

Apparently Starbucks increased efficiencies and unlocked its success by forcing customers to say “Venti” instead of large, according to Uncommon Service: How to Win by Putting Customers at the Core of Your Business, a book by Anne Morris.

The implication of Anne Morris’ work, and her interview with HBR, is that yes, your company can thrive by inventing terminology and shaming plebes into using your off-brand terms. But be prepared – it won’t work at first: (via Consumerist)

“Very quickly, this process was eroding the service experience because the lines were getting longer.”

So rather than train its employees into how to deal with customers using all sorts of vague terms for sizes and types of coffee drinks, Starbucks realized it was easier to train customers to use a single system of ordering.

“We all have been very well trained, it turns out,” says Morriss. “When we show up in line, if we order it incorrectly, then the correct version is shouted out for the whole store to hear… Really what’s motivating is that we don’t like to be corrected in public.”

"Did you call this a large? Bahahaha. Try Dunkin Donuts, loser."

First, not a chance. If long lines were such a problem, Starbucks would have switched silly terms to ‘small, medium, and large’ faster than it takes a ‘barista’ to ‘invigorate’ a ‘macchiato.’

Second, it’s tough to congratulate a company for customer service when it’s apparently decided “the customer can be wrong.” Just imagine walking into a bank, asking for a check card, then watching the clerk snort, raise an eyebrow, and toss a piece of plastic across the desk. They mutter, “Uh, it’s a DEBIT card, Einstein.” You probably wouldn’t consider that exemplary – or even efficient – customer service.

I guess that’s beside the point, however. This strategy is endorsed by HBR, so it must be legit. Boardrooms across America will applaud this self-congratulation dressed up as MBA curricula; the implication is that they’re right, customers are sheep, and innovation isn’t necessary for success. Instead, just wait for customers to bend to your will. Just like Starbucks did.

Speaking of which, this is an outstanding bit of PR manipulation by Starbucks. Come to think of it, maybe that’s the secret to their success.

• How Starbucks Trains Customers to Behave [Harvard Business Review]
• How Starbucks Trained Us All to Use Their Lingo [Consumerist]

PREVIOUSLY

• Starbucks is Up to Something. But What? [Branding]
• Starbucks vs. McDonalds: The Untold Battle [War on Slate]

"You know, last week, this was just an empty shaft. Uh, elevator shaft." (Courtesy AMC)

Every Monday, it’s a mad dash for Mad Men recappers. After the Sunday potboiler concludes, TV critics, part-time sportswriters, ad execs, reporters and all of our favorites race to construct billowy literary comparisons on deadline!

This is their power poll.

Part time saver, part tribute, we review the best of Mad Men’s bon mots to drop into your very own water-cooler conversation. Or, failing that, your Twitter feed. To the power poll! Spoilers abound.

"Can we get some more people in the frame?" (Courtesy AMC.)

Not ranked. Jen Doll, The Atlantic Wire. Nelle Engoron, Salon, Julia Turner, Slate, Tim Goodman, Ty Duffy, The Cajun Boy.

10. Mo Ryan, Huffington Post

“It was a bad episode of TV. And it was not in a special class of mediocrity that allows it to still somehow remain elevated above the fray. It made the mistakes that much less brilliant shows make. It repeated a lot of themes that we’re already very familiar with, it didn’t add to them in compelling or imaginative ways, and it featured a character that just doesn’t work.”

Trolling won’t get you to the top of Recap the Recappers, Mo!

9. Matthew Creamer, Ad Age.

“At this point, Pete and Roger, as a pair of generation-gapped empty suits, can be plotted at opposite points on the happiness-success matrix. Pete, who we see fantasizing about his recent one-night stand and getting left out of a New York Times Magazine story about Madison Ave., is miserable despite killing it in the office. Roger, post LSD and split with Jane, is content but struggling to claw back some professional worth.”

8. Patrick Radden Keefe, Slate.

“Don’s decision to abandon Ginsberg’s sketch in the taxi is not a Don Draper move. Rather, it’s precisely the sort of thing that Roger and Pete have been doing for years. The sneaky play by the guy who fears that he might lack for natural talent was never one of Don’s devices, if only because he always had so much talent to spare. … when Don responded to Ginsberg’s boast that he has “a million” good ideas by saying, “I guess I’m lucky you work for me,” he lost my allegiance in a pretty significant way.”

Funny. I actually found empathy with Don Draper flexing his muscle, rather than sympathy for poor, brilliant Ginsberg. Don knows what Mike doesn’t. Rejection and apathy will slowly kill the bright light inside of you. Then you’re older, with no patience, and mourning your own genius while enviously squashing others.’

7. Deborah Lipp, Press Play

“It’s also about crushing the other guy in the process, and the notion that success just isn’t as much fun unless someone is under your bootheel. I don’t think many fans love Jane Sterling, but her plaintive realization that she’s been defeated by Roger touched me: “You get everything you want, and you still had to do this.” That, as much as Betty’s Thanksgiving gratitude, is the real point: Winning in this show’s world is hollow unless someone else loses.”

6. Adam B. Vary, EW.com

“Betty’s biggest miscalculation, I think, was that Don had hid Anna Draper and all she represented about his past from Megan, just as he had hid it from Betty. Sally, of course, made no such assumption, so her anger at her father for keeping her in the dark about his secret first wife briskly curdled into snotty contempt for Megan for betraying their relationship.”

"Has some blind tiger been jerkin' suds on the side?" (Courtesy AMC)

Also, Betty’s storyline reflects our weariness with Don’s former skeletons. By season 5, we’re well-versed with Dick Whitman lore, just like everyone tangential to Don. We’re past it. Dredging it up here pays simple heed to the show’s evolution: It’s not about Dick Whitman anymore. Or Betty.

5. Matt Zoller Seitz, Vulture.

“… the younger writers and execs were obviously humoring him because he was Don Draper (good!), and the punch line of that subplot, Don leaving Ginsberg’s superior campaign in the car so as not to appear “weak” (even better!), was itself weakened by not seeing Don in the pitch meeting that ultimately won the account. (The pitch as presented didn’t seem strong enough to get a “yes” from anybody; “Kids love cartoon devils” wasn’t enough for me.) Absent a full-on display of Don Draper smoke-and-mirrors charisma — or even a vague sense of what sorts of people the clients were — I didn’t believe that the devil campaign could win the day for Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce, even with Don leaving Michael’s pitch in the car.”

'Not to mention Kermit the damn Frog!"

Wait a minute. I thought advertising was  beneath Zoller Seitz? My typical response. Also, segue!

INTERMISSION: MY TAKE. Normally Mad Men sings when they delve straight into the advertising game, but “Dark Shadows” suffered from the Studio 60 problem. Namely, when you instill one (or two) characters as the pinnacle of creative genius, glimpses of their creative product better be brilliant. Ginsberg and Draper warring over lackluster pitches recalled Studio 60’s painfully unfunny show-within-a-show.

I’m nitpicking, because I really enjoy the agency dynamic between faded star and self-appointed creative wunderkinds. Young creatives – Peggy, Ginsberg – easily convince themselves of their own genius.

Don’s fade into middle age, and his differences with Peggy and Ginsberg makes him wonder: Was his talent just a concoction of persona? Was he ever a genius, or just self-confident? Now that he knows how to work the room and be the boss, he wonders if he forever checked his creativity at the door. Come to think of it, you can still hear the mistaken-identity Dick Whitman demons, after all.

4. Todd VanDerWerff, The AV Club,

“The hard work of confronting who you actually are and dealing with your shit is not as easy as just buying into a prefabricated image. Your true self will rise up out of the depths of your subconscious from time to time, but for the most part, you’re doing your best to construct an image of yourself that the rest of the world will buy into, be that the perfect man in a perfect suit …. To give in to your feelings—even a little bit—is weakness, and to survive, those emotional moments have to be held privately. After all, Betty only left Don after she’d seen who he really was at his core. Letting anyone know too much about you is power.”

3. Molly Lambert, Grantland.

Even Pete’s sex dream about Rory Gilmore seemed a little bit retro (a fur coat?). The only person genuinely looking forward to the future is Sally Draper, and that is because she is beyond ready to escape from her joint-custody nightmare. Betty’s experiments in good parenting always seem to end the same way: with a sudden cold front and a declaration to “go to your room,” or a reward of television.

2. Mark Lisanti, Grantland. (Wow, big week for Grantland.)

Don writes Megan a perfectly composed, two-line love poem, and all he gets in return is “Gone to get bagels, *heart* M”? How about, “Gone to get bagels. When I return, we’ll fill the holes with our love”? Or “Gone to get bagels, bringing home a schmear for my schweetie.” Maybe, “Gone to get bagels. When I get back, I’ll slather you in cream cheese and toss smoked salmon at your manly chest”? You know what? This is harder than it looks. She gets a pass. Even if she’s haughtily dismissive of the writing on Dark Shadows.

"Only you can stop you from looking in other people's windows." (Courtesy AMC)

1. Alan Sepinwall, Hitfix.

“The problem is that once upon a time, Don Draper was creative, and now he’s just a director. A peek at Ginsberg’s notebook inspires him to come up with his own idea, but while everyone likes it(**), it’s clear that Ginsberg’s is better: more youth-oriented, more about the product, and simply funnier. Don wins this round — and even wounds Ginsberg by telling him “I don’t think about you at all” (the worst thing you can say to a guy like that) — but you can see on his face after their encounter just how troubled Don is by how far he’s fallen…”

I can relate. Creative only pays the bills for a scant few. Even the second-tier brilliant ascend upward into middle management, evaluating rapid-fire TV recaps for personal blogs. (WHOA, too real!) Bonus quote:

We keep waiting for things to get better — for Betty to be a little nicer, for Don to get his mojo back, for the agency to start picking up steam — and it’s just not happening. These are more desperate times than we realized, and the more desperate things get, the more every man or woman believes he or she has to think of him or herself — even if that winds up making things worse, not better.”

PREVIOUSLY

• A Little Kiss
• Tea Leaves
• Mystery Date
• Signal 30
• Far Away Places
• At the Codfish Ball (My Take)
• At the Codfish Ball (Recappers)
• Lady Lazarus (My Take)
• Lady Lazarus (Recappers)
• Just Tell Us How Smart We Are
• Dark Shadows

“Hey, remember us? We’re NBC. We’re the network. Like one of our best shows said, once upon a time, ‘We’re Keith Hernandez.‘

Remember Newsradio and Scrubs, two influential, praised comedies that several shows owe debts even today? Well, guess what. Scrubs drew nothing and Newsradio drew less. We slotted them wherever there was a gap. Thursday? Maybe. Tuesday? Sure! Wednesday nights? Fine and dandy. The 10 fans of each show complained, but whatever.

But you know what Scrubs and Newsradio didn’t do?

They didn’t whine about their fates, start silly feuds with a star, or turn each episode into a less funny cartoon than the previous. They did their jobs.

But we f*cked Scrubs and Newsradio, and those shows didn’t piss us off. Welcome to Fridays, Community. Know what else? You’re following Whitney. Have fun with your parodies, geeks.”

• NBC makes small steps in overcoming its crippling fear of success [AV Club]
• The Voice and football trump Thursday nostalgia [What's Alan Watching]

PREVIOUSLY

• Community: Recap the Recappers, “Dreamatorium”
• The Insufferable Non-Apology, starring Community’s Dan Harmon
• Community is fantastic. Also, Community is exhausting.
• Why Community is Terrible. Also, Why Community is Awesome.

Courtesy AMC.

With only five episodes remaining in Mad Men‘s engrossing season 5, the content of features and reviews changes. Once mysterious and optimistic, now they’re into serious literary critique, plaudits, or helpless forecasting.

Bring on the finale, everyone cries. Let me know how brilliant I am! Here at the home of Mad Men Recap Analysis, we bring you a dabble of each.

"Wait. So I'm NOT everywoman?" (Courtesy AMC)

First, Andy Greenwald of Grantland celebrates the otherwordly character of Megan Draper. Having arrived on the scene and upset the status quo, Megan is a character unlike any other. And really, in the late 1960s, didn’t every institution begin to discover characters unlike any other? Youthful, vibrant, petulant, mopey – perhaps Megan represents Baby Boomer-entitlement, now ready to shake up the masses who yearned only for indoor plumbing, if not money, success and family.

Over five seasons we’ve watched Peggy sacrifice everything only to wind up in the very same place Megan is eager to flee. Where Peggy had to fight and claw just to get a taste, Megan was handed everything on the menu, shrugged, and ordered ice cream instead. Generation gaps are only threatening to those on the wrong side of them. While Don and Peggy were stuck squabbling over artificial dessert topping, Megan zooby-zoomed her way into the stratosphere.

Greenwald compares Peggy and Megan, and he’s onto something. Since Mad Men began, viewers quickly relate to Peggy; and many of us thought she would be the wunderkind, creative, frustrated protester to hail the coming of THE SIXTIES. Instead, is it possible she’s the last respite of the old guard; the self-righteous, sharp, career woman who picked the wrong side?

The essay is worth a read; Greenwald has quickly proved one of the most crucial contributors to Grantland. If Simmons is a must-read [Ed. It's not 2002.] then Greenwald is securely a notch below, a master at entwining serious critique with lighthearted audience engagement. Just think where he’d rank in our Mad Men power poll every week!

...and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.

Skewing a tad more fanciful, Richard Lawson and Jen Doll of The Atlantic Wire evaluate several parlor predictions of Mad Men‘s last five episodes. Will Pete die? Will Sally die? Will someone plummet down an elevator shaft? Will Roger and Joan pair up as the superparents we know they are?

The Harry Crane/Don Draper buddy movie. … Think of this as the Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle-as-two-white-married-ad-men-in-the-’60s plot. Don appears to hate Harry, but really, he loves him! The two could gallivant about in a big old boat of a car, with Don being hilarious and crotchety and Harry being hilarious and stupid. Sometimes Don would bonk Harry on the head with a mallet, just for laughs, and he’d wear a shirt that says “I’m with stupid” with an arrow pointing to his old buddy old pal, and he’d instruct him charming the ladies and provide occasional diet tips and life lessons.

Sourced in popular groupthink, or wild flights of imagination – Godfather Sal running the show behind the scenes? — the piece underlines a prime Mad Men benefit: discussing potboiling plot threads with your middlebrow friends. Maybe the cap to each season isn’t exactly what you thought – remember the gnashing of teeth after Don proposed to Megan – but the setup-and-swerve is the reason we watch. Isn’t it?

Mad Men: Recap the Recappers posts Monday afternoon. See you then!

• The Alien Mystique [Grantland]
• Alternate Mad Men Plots We’d Like to See [The Atlantic Wire]

"Looks like a happy ending for Happy Endings. Except it's not really an ending. But it is happy. A happy ending. To this caption."

Each week, right here, I review my top four items from the week that passed.

Sometimes I’ll be angry. Sometimes I’ll be wistful. Sometimes I’ll just point out TV shows I watched. Sometimes,I’ll be woefully late with plaudits for a noteworthy story I read. Bonus: You continue to learn more about me, the writer, which helps my ego and keeps you coming back for more. #Hint.

After the jump: Open Letters, Parks and Rec and Happy Endings, Chase’s new liquid debit card, and This Week in Duh: How to use LinkedIn.

"I've just been handed an urgent and horrifying open letter."

The Open Letter To. It’s time to retire the most aggravating – or self-aggrandizing – form of blog posting: the Open Letter to Whom You’re Referring. Bonus points if your topic is tangential to the audience. Double bonus points if the device permits you to lump entire masses of people into your own self-serving stereotypes. (Note: I’m picking on Grantland and poor Brian Phillips. His article may well have been fine. In pure Grantland style, it was definitely TL, DR.)

The hollow Open Letter is a technique for writers who wish to ascribe an added level of importance to their work. It’s also a license to not self-edit, because, hey, it’s a letter! You’re just talking here! And finally, it overtly (or unwittingly, I suppose) inserts you, the writer into part of the story; the messenger revealing painful truths, the siren song for decency or common sense. When, in fact, you’re just a stupid writer, and you’re not the story.

If “Open Letters” commanded a higher percentage of clicks than traditional headlines, I’d sort of understand. (SEO Break: Open Letter to You with Top 10 photos Kate Upton) The bet is, they don’t. Instead, they’re a device as hokey as leading with a dictionary definition. If your point is important, or worth reading, it requires no false elevation. Otherwise, why write it at all?

"Ain't gettin' rid of us that easy!"

Quality Wins. Not only did Cougar Town earn a new season (and new digs) this week – but quality comedies earned victories across the board.

As recently as two weeks ago, you could reasonably guess that Cougar Town, Community, 30 Rock, Parks and Recreation, Happy Endings, Up All Night, and DTTBIA23 might have run their course. None enjoyed anything but middling ratings. All enjoyed some sort of critical acclaim. Each sat on the chopping block.

But as of today, they’re all coming back. All of them. Parks and Happy Endings earned full season pickups – well-deserved votes of confidence after brilliant seasons. Uneven Community earned a chance to stay alive, 30 Rock a chance to end on its own terms; and two other comedies another chance to unlock flashes of promise.

Maybe neither the glut of renewals, nor Cougar Town, is quite the evidence of the “demand era” for network TV that I wrote about yesterday. But it’s something

"Use instead of coffee can."

Prepaid debit cards. This week Chase entered the prepaid debit card game. For years, consultants have claimed prepaid as the wave of the future; customers outgrowing the bygone structure of checking accounts. Chase’s “Liquid” product is sort of monumental.

Why now? Well, debit-card income just isn’t what it used to be. And the consultants are sort-of right. it’s a plastic jungle out there; everyone needs a card. Cash is dead. Presumably a customer opts for prepaid because they can’t qualify for a checking account. So they can’t really complain when prepaid cards prove license to charge onerous and pointless fees. The bank also saves with no worry about servicing overdrawn accounts. If your customer spends more than he loaded, the transaction simply fails. That’s easy. The regulators like that. The regulators also like the previously-unprofitable, and underserved demographic as target – looks good on a community reinvestment report. Chase Liquid proves the banking behemoth cares for customers who can’t get a checking account. Doesn’t matter, Chase says, they still have a [fee-happy] home here! Formerly blotches on a customer profile, now they’re revenue streams.

Will it work for Chase? Well, remember movie theaters, chasing the texting “flakes” who can’t afford (financially or otherwise) to be loyal? This could be similar. It’s a marketing sinkhole; if Chase commits to this market, they’ll always be churning messages, media, and high-turnover, low-ceiling customers. But if they can make up those sunk marketing costs with fee volume? I guess it’s a no-brainer.

[UPDATE: Looks like JPMorgan Chase may just need income anywhere they can get it. Mistakes beget risky opportunities...]

"All of these people used the word 'leverage'."

This Week in Duh. Another gem from Inc, where a marketing “expert” details  The five most revealing parts of a LinkedIn profile. (Note: Are there more than five parts of a LinkedIn profile?) Particularly notable is the lead: “Yes, LinkedIn tells me lots about potential employees. But it’s just as useful for getting the scoop on a new client or partner.”

Pretty safe to say that readers not savvy enough to use LinkedIn for, uh, its whole freaking purpose, probably are not reading Inc. But maybe they are. Anyway, Chase employees can maybe use some LinkedIn pointers. They just had their premium accounts yanked!

• Chase Gets Into Prepaid Card Biz [CNNMoney]
• An Open Letter to Sonics Fans from an OKC Thunder supporter [Grantland]
• NBC Renews Parks and Rec, more [Hitfix]
• Cougar Town: Popular By Demand [Inc.]

"What about our free tickets to Disneyland?"

Pour yourself a Big Carl.

Only a few days from ABC’s upfront, TBS leaked the news.  Bill Lawrence’s quirky comedy Cougar Town would shift networks to basic cable in the fall, tepid ratings be damned.

This spared ABC from having to axe one show between Cougar, Apartment 23, Happy Endings, and Suburgatory, each vying for three spots. Not only that, this is cause for rejoice for fans of the best comedy on TV (Well, my favorite) but it’s also a fascinating case study. Network TV may actually be changing before our eyes. Consider:

"Wait a minute. Two networks? One spinoff?"

First, Bill Lawrence is king of keeping shows alive past a deserved expiration date. Scrubs survived perilous numbers on NBC for six years. (And you think Community has it rough) When syndication boosted the goofy, pioneering medical show’s numbers, ABC eagerly milked the show for two more seasons. And that’s BEFORE ordering a ninth and final spinoff. Now, it’s Cougar Town that shifts networks, irrespective of numbers. Coincidence?

This is a credit to Lawrence, a shrewd showrunner, if not a case study for MBA classes. He understands not just how to engage with his audience but how to leverage that engagement to network executives.

Somehow, TBS network executives saw beyond poor Nielsen numbers. Someone convinced them. Lawrence saved Cougar Town. He bucked the rigged system.

It’s easy to bemoan the flawed Nielsen ratings. It’s 2012. How cable companies can’t deliver exact measurables of real-time and shifted viewings of shows to networks is beyond me. It’s infuriating.

I know exactly who’s visiting these page, this blog post, from where, when, and how they got here. But network executives rely on 100 people with a scratch pad to determine multimillion-dollar campaign sales? The technology exists to reveal who watched what and when. If not perfectly, real-time accurate – we could at least get a more educated guess. Instead, we get illusion.

But the illusion is exactly why TV ratings and advertising rate cards haven’t changed (besides rate hikes, naturally). Too many fingers in the pie benefit from ambiguous measures – the network, the cable company, satellilte companies, and the affiliates. There’s too many buyers for finite 30-second slots, layered carefully so everyone can purchase a slice. Better to keep it a happy mystery than deliver numbers and remove all doubt. But buyers and networks stay happy. The buyers know TV advertising works, even if they don’t know the real-time impact.The illusion, bought and sold and sold again.

Lawrence, at least, had the ear of TBS network executives. Even as the numbers faltered, even when the critics predicted doom – Lawrence expressed extreme confidence in Cougar Town’s renewal. Turns out he did know something we didn’t. Turns out he was politicking and plotting his show’s success all along. [Another Lawrence tweet, image]

But maybe this is the wave of the future. It’s not unprecendented; TBS revived Family Guy through successful reruns alone, and that was 10 years ago. TNT breathed life into Southland. Could it be possible that networks now serve as a bizarre proving ground, instead of benchmark? After all, the network doesn’t care about content. It needs only numbers to inform its sales.

If your show makes it through development, the network is content to cast Cougar Town‘s net over a wide sea. Why not? Maybe your Modern Family net rakes in millions of fishes, Maybe your Cougar Town struggles to land even one big one. But that doesn’t mean it can’t survive somewhere else; a smaller pond, a pond yearning for a demonstrably dedicated and savvy viewing base. Would you bet against Community’s extension to Comedy Central after next season?

I wouldn’t. The world is on-demand; network content is, too. Apps have proven valuable content channels alongside the internet; blogs find actionable audiences alongside mass media, and cable now commands viewers apart from network schedules.

In the Internet Economy, people spend 8-10 hours per day connected online; a third of their time with email, a quarter each with social media or search. The remaining two hours sprinkle in as content navigation throughout the day. Media companies and websites thus compete, with content, for those two hours. (Source, comScore, via Folio.)

"Where were all these plush renewals when we were gettin' canned?"

It’s a small window. But is it any smaller than cable’s versus network? Or a plucky comedy show versus network news, cable sports, morning background, or Oprah? Maybe not. The difference for a smaller network, in the demand economy, is that the content has to be better. Its user base has to be decent. Cougar Town is a decent bet for both.

If the content’s good, people will find it and demand it. Lawrence’s Cougar Town may not be a pioneer of the shift to on-demand culture, but it’s at least a shining exhibit.

If only Bill Lawrence had run Better Off Ted.

• Cable comes to rescue of Cougar Town [Atlantic Wire]

PREVIOUSLY

• Scrubs and syndication [MFG]
• Bill Lawrence: Ridgefielder [MFG]
• Remembering Better Off Ted [MFG]

Shouldn’t this be funnier?

I’m really asking. I’m not sure what I don’t understand about HBO’s new Veep, which purports to be an evisceration – I think – of American politics. Instead, it’s a bunch of idiots babbling about idiocy. Hmm. Maybe, mission accomplished?

But for me, Veep doesn’t quite work.

I’m willing to suspend my disbelief that a totally-broke, mumbling idiot can subsist for more than a week in Brooklyn,for example.

I’ll even allow numerous courtroom bait-and-switches for a snide duo who don’t take themselves too seriously. But I’m not willing to suspend my disbelief that the Vice President of the United States would not simply make a phone call if her assistant, say, accidentally signed the wrong name to a greeting card. But this was the premiere’s chief plot string.

It’s stupid. Not stupid like, “oh, I was once young and dumb.” But stupid like, “we created this artificial plot occurrence suspended only by stupidity, but follow along because we’ll fill the dead air with quips and profanity.” It doesn’t work to say, “Look how silly these professional people are!” by constructing contrivances that could be avoided with a simple phone call.

Yet that’s Veep. I’m watching it, but as anything other than rapid-fire insult humor (Not that there’s anything wrong with that), it just doesn’t work. Let’s explore.

First, I’m a fan of all these people. Julia Louis-Dreyfus is fantastic, like usual. Matt Walsh is great as the passed-over professional, uncaring of his big picture but conscious of his small place. Anna Chlumsky, Tony Hale, and the rest of the cast all work seamlessly well, they’re talented. The slimy, plotting aide is a great character, the smarmy frat boy unleashing his ethereal smarts on the political machine.

But the problem is the writing. The setup. The meticulous cause-and-effect that leads a wonderful cast through a myriad of hoops; characters never stopping to espouse the least bit of common sense.

Unlike novels, TV shows depend on collaboration between storyteller, filmmaker, and cast. You get the sense here that Veep’s storyteller is so certain of his own brilliance that he needs not stop and vet the actual situations. Besides, it’s about how stupid American politics is, right? And especially the toothless Vice President! So, just chuck all credibility out the window! You can always just claim it’s satire, and purposeful!

Except it doesn’t sing. The material just sits there, a farce for farce’s sake. After three episodes, I laugh enough to keep watching, but I leave the episode weary. Half of my brain scolds these stupid characters for not being just a little less stupid.

The fanciful farce plot strings normally plague sitcoms only in later years. The Office, for example, sacrificed its core for wild, unbelievable storylines. Rebecca burnt down Cheers. In Seinfeld’s late seasons, the contrivances became a function of plot instead of character quirks. Even in Newsradio, when the cast exhausted all minutiae and ticks from rich characters, the show sputtered to a kill with increasingly lavish plot executions.

With Veep, they’ve begun from a place of unbelievability. I’m sure the claim is that politics is woefully inefficient, and yammering nobodies clammer to be someone so vigorously that they say bye-bye to basic human brains and decent conduct. I guess I’m unwilling to believe this. I’ll believe misguided stupidity. I won’t believe stupidity for it’s own sake. And I’ll never be president.

“I am so mis-represented.”

“No one out there truly gets me.”

“No one gets to see me and my friends, or how funny, endearing, and brilliant we are.”

“Why doesn’t anyone tell a story about my experience?”

These are the whiny, self-obsessed convictions of the twentysomething adult. The nibbles that fester in writers’ brains, now and today, yesterday and tomorrow, when we begin. The stupid, plaintive wails that make older brothers wince, that cause parents’ mouths to drop, that make coworkers hate you; that prove our overt myopia.

This is stupidity. And if you outgrow this in your 20s, consider yourself blessed. Because the rest of us don’t. Which doesn’t mean we can’t laugh at how stupid we were. Or are. Or continue to be.

This is the story of HBO’s Girls. This is why it works. This is why it angers you. But this is why it’s funny.

I suppose it’s somewhat true; the last thing anyone needs is yet another show about white, middle-class, hip twentysomethings trying to claw their way up the New York City food chain. And, yes, the lead character is a writer, which even makes thirtysomething writers cringe.

However. We’re always in need of characters and story that illuminate truths about ourselves, our friends, and that nostalgic yet harrowing time in our lives when everything seemed monumental, but none of it was. It was so goddam stupid, self-destructive and self-serving, but we’ll never remember it as anything other than fun. Or, failing that, instructive of who we are.

Perhaps I’m biased. I see Girls as a comedy that never will be my favorite. But I totally get it. I wrote These Monks, beginning as idea in 2003, and finishing a final draft in 2008. I was 26 when I started, I’m 34 now. The three lead characters are all iterations of frustrated white, supposed adults, drunk on their own potential and perilous circumstances. And also drunk. I tell anyone These Monks is for anyone trying to find themselves, or, for that matter, trying to find someone else. I believe that as a central truth of life in your twenties. You’re searching. That’s what I appreciate about HBO’s Girls.

The show has its detractors and it should, it’s not perfect. I tend to think that Dunham’s line about herself – “I’m at least a voice. Of a generation.” – inflamed as many viewers as it inspired. The line’s sheer myopia – and HBO’s promotion of it in ads — was Exhibit A that Girls takes itself way too seriously.

Well, that’s correct. Hannah’s line is so incredulous, so monstrously self-absorbed and ridiculous, that it’s simply comment on how silly and naïve these characters are. Of course Hannah takes herself way too seriously. So does everyone who’s 24. Yes, it’s a stupid line from an idiot kid who doesn’t understand the real world. Spoiler: That’s the fucking show.

Dunham’s awareness of twentysomething myopia drives the entire show, the subtext asking “Can you believe these stupid kids?” This self-awareness is typically absent from usual self-serious “mumblecore” or Indie cinema, or Reality Bites. (Full disclosure: Pretty sure I didn’t intend this same satirical, head-shaking trait as subtext of These Monks on purpose. But it’s there. I think that means good characters, both here and in Dunham’s vision. I digress; this isn’t about me. OR IS IT?)

Anyway, it’s not my favorite show, but I really enjoy it; it’s fused with an element of truth and satire that makes me smile, nod my head, and understand. Nothing deserves universal Hosannas (except Mad Men? No?), least of all a show narrowly-tailored – supposedly – to white girls in their 20s.

But here’s the thing: it’s not. If you’ve been young once, and remember that time of self-discovery – fondly or with regret – you can find something to like about the show. Girls that age are stupid; so are the meatheads they date, so are adults. You get to laugh at them, hope that life changes, like it did for you. Didn’t it?

"I see Pete's death in the shape of this Cool Whip." (Courtesy AMC)

Every Monday, it’s a mad dash for Mad Men recappers. After the Sunday potboiler concludes, TV critics, part-time sportswriters, ad execs, reporters and all of our favorites race to construct billowy literary comparisons in real time and on deadline!

This is their power poll.

Part time saver, part tribute, we review the best of Mad Men’s bon mots to drop into your very own water-cooler conversation.

If you’re inclined, check out my take from earlier today. With only five episodes left, several reviewers comment on the pervading sense of doom throughout this Mad Men season; the eerie feeling that our heroes glide through trances, as precursor to something horrible. (Note: Not just Mr. Belding.) But what?

"Death is everywhere! See there? Death. And there? DEEEAAATH!" (Courtesy AMC)

As several critics mentioned, Pete’s death is foretold elaborately. Like a kick to the groin. Subtle. But the overt symbolism cannot be that simple. Can it? It’s a credit to Mad Men’s powers that be, who have infused each character’s arc with ominous shadows lurking. As we age, and change, don’t those shadows lurk ever more? Does the promise of nearby youth not awake those shadows?

Ugh, see what this recap exercise is doing to me? I sound pretentious enough to write for Vulture. (NOTE: AVAILABLE) Franklin and Bash cannot get here soon enough. To the Power Poll! Spoiler Alerts, for reals, below.

Not ranked: Julia Turner, John Swansburg, Slate, Nelle Engerton, Salon, Tim Goodman, Hollywood Reporter (ALERT: “Sherbert.”) The Cajun Boy, Uproxx. Ty Duffy, The Big Lead. Adam Vary, EW.com (Best title, though: “She Said She Said.”)

10. Molly Lambert, Grantland

“The worry that Pete is going to rape Beth is assuaged by Beth making the first move. “Don’t you want me? You can have me,” she says, knowing full well he will think about it for the rest of his life. (“Just taste it!”) Rory Gilmore and Pete lie on their backs like a couple of postcoital Republicans. Her neck is all red and her pearls are still on. Everyone’s on the floor this season.”

"No, stupid, this is the WB logo." (Courtesy AMC)

9. Jen Doll, the Atlantic Wire.

“Women are not simply happy because they’re being provided for in this post-Betty Mad Men world… They want more, and more is varied, complicated, individual, and sometimes problematic. We see this with Peggy, Megan, and Howard’s wife Beth; we’ve seen it with Joan throughout the seasons. In contrast, we see the men, especially Pete, flailing. We see Don getting “old,” and a little bit out of touch. And as even the inpenetrable Roger tells Don later in the episode…  “I sure as hell didn’t get to do what I wanted to do. My father told me.”

8. Alan Sepinwall, Hitfix.

“[Don] picks the record needle up and walks sadly towards the empty bedroom, adrift at work again and now at risk of losing his wife to another world he knows little of. Don Draper, master of the universe, is now utterly dependent on a woman he can’t control (and doesn’t want to) and can’t entirely understand.”

7. Matt Creamer, Ad Age.

“When is someone going to die?

For a fifth-season show that’s yet to see a major character bite the dust, “Mad Men” is steeped in death. Health scares and random historical catastrophes of earlier seasons have given way to a backdrop of random, gruesome, media-hyped mass violence…So it should be no surprise by now that titling an episode “Lady Lazarus,” after a Sylvia Plath poem, is just more than atological foreplay.”

6. Mo Ryan, Huffpo.

“Not that every ad has to be an innovation, and not every campaign has to be revolutionary, but SCDP appears to be an agency without a clear and engaging creative mandate. And, because Megan heeded John Lennon’s call to “listen to the color of [her] dreams,” the agency just lost the one employee who might have been able to help bring it into the modern age.”

Me again: Mad Men subtly details the shift in the advertising industry; the first hints of the speed of media and TV overtaking cultural norms. No more will a creative wordsmith set cultural agendas with a stunning print ad: Now clients demand entertainment. The ad agency, forced to co-opt cultural currency will forever be reactionary, bastardizing art instead of creating it themselves.

Just like the gang designing campaigns around “A Hard Day’s Night,” they’re already behind the curve, instead of dictating nostalgia, as Don Draper would prefer. Now, the ad guys – the Mad Men – “tomorrow never knows.”

5. Deborah Lipp, PressPlay

“Pete, Beth, Howard, Peggy: they all lie, they all speak in code, they all talk about the things that aren’t true in order to obliquely say the things that are. No wonder Megan, speaking her truth to the best of her ability, shakes them all up.”

4. Patrick Radden Keefe, Slate.

“The central characters in Mad Men seem to share this devotion to the business. They sacrifice their hours, energies, and identities to what they do. When people leave the office, they tend to leave the show, as well. Sal, Duck, Freddy, Kinsey: The moment you stop taking that elevator each day, the banishment is complete. You’re relegated not just across town, but to oblivion. In the dramatic ecosystem of Mad Men, having a job at the firm is not just a way to make a living—it’s the very reason you exist.”

"Guh. All you guys are so long-winded..." (Courtesy AMC)

3. Mark Lisanti, Grantland.

“Call us crazy, but we feel like [Howard and Beth Dawes] these kids are going to make it. He’ll have his place in the city for his side pieces, and his “late nights at the office” give her plenty of time to retaliate with the occasional Metro-North commuter. Seems pretty foolproof, as long as the train beef she picks up doesn’t start doing insane shit like showing up to the house on the flimsy pretense of haggling over an emergency life insurance policy. Maybe she should stick to men whose eyes don’t remind her of majestic space photography, just to be safe.”

2. Matt Zoller Seitz, Vulture.

“[Don is] no longer the dashing, faintly dangerous Idea Man, but an authority figure, a full partner with responsibilities, and the more young hot shots he surrounds himself with … the more like a fuddy-duddy boss he seems. …. Don married a much younger woman, a blank slate that he could inscribe his dreams on, but he can never be young again, and the more time he spends with her, and with the youth culture-connected younglings of SCDP, the more he knows it.”

"What? Todd again? Are you ranking Community recappers?" (Courtesy AMC)

1. Todd VanDerWerff, The AV Club

“Escape routes never go quite where you expect them to, do they? Chasing what you want inevitably means taking away something someone else wants, whether that’s as simple as giving your co-worker, confidante, and champion more work or as complicated and hurtful as cheating on your wife. When you escape, you inevitably leave a bunch of other people behind, and they’re all still stuck at their desks or in their lives, waiting for you to come home and resume living the life they always thought you were living.”

BONUS QUOTE!

“Mad Men has all but perfected the art of taking over-obvious symbols—that elevator shaft, that window fog—then not insisting they apply to the characters as a whole. Don feels the bottom dropping out in a way he can’t articulate, so he takes it out on Peggy. Pete’s fallen in love with someone who might as well be a helpless child, playing at being grown-up. … These are all people trapped in their own lives, and the episode chooses one perfect image for each and every one of them.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• A Little Kiss [Recap the Recappers]
• Tea Leaves [Recap the Recappers]
• Mystery Date [Recap the Recappers]
• Signal 30 [Recap the Recappers]
• Far Away Places [Recap the Recappers]
• At the Codfish Ball [My Take]
• At the Codfish Ball [Recap the Recappers]
• Lady Lazarus [My Take]

Hey, hey, hey, hey WHAT is going on here?

But first, my three-paragraph take on Sunday night’s “Lady Lazarus.” Our weekly power poll of critical takes from around the globe will drop later today.

Spoilers ahead.

My Take. First, let’s cross off the critics’ checklist: (a) Alexis Bledel from The Gilmore Girls played bored housewife and Pete Campbell temptress, (b) Mr. Belding from Saved By the Bell showed up as lead Kraft scientist, and (c) Megan urges Don to play “Tomorrow Never Knows,” the last track from the Beatles’ Revolver.

Revolver, of course, was the Beatles sounding more trippy than any point previously; it’s a sound that would define their next record, Sergeant Pepper, and as Don spun the disc, he couldn’t enjoy the shift to the new sound. In the background previously, a radio report ominously recounted President Johnson’s conduct in southeast Asia. Like we say during each of these recaps, the world is changing, and the new sound will soon infect the  youth, the world, and his life. The cultural currency Don adeptly trades may be artifact within a calendar year. Pete clutches the world, so close to manipulating his life how he wants, and eager puppetmaster who yearns to be ladykiller, yet so far away. Peggy is slightly jealous of Meghan’s vigor, but also the ease which Megan commands copywriting, advertising, and life.

But they’re all slightly jealous, because Mad Men’s principals don’t want to change. Unlike the others, Megan eagerly charges ahead with her hopes and dreams. It’s scary, but it’s real. Everyone else checked those dreams long ago, and soon, those dreams will be antiquated, dated, and long gone, just like the now. Will Megan be gone, too? Don doesn’t know. But he suspects. That’s panic enough.

By the way, who’s dropping down that open elevator shaft? Either Mad Men foretells someone’s doom, or SCDP can’t afford to operate each of its elevators. Guess we’ll see.