Jason Unger

The First Official 24 Season 8 Trailer

Posted by junger - 10/29/09 at 07:10:52 am

As shown during Game 1 of the World Series Wednesday night:

Great quotes:

"You're lucky I'm retired."

"You're supposed to call me grandpa"

Why Can't We Always Blink New Music?

Posted by junger - 10/22/09 at 07:10:12 am

Why does it take two or three listens to new music before you decide if you like it or not?

You know what I mean. The first time you hear a song on the radio or Pandora or on an album, you're not sure if it's any good. I know I can't be the only person this happens to.

Take, for example, Light, the latest album from Matisyahu. We bought this album in the car on a recent trip to Philly, but on the first listen, I really wasn't sure if I would like it (tangent: it is so addictive buying crap on your phone in the middle of nowhere. Apple has to love this).

One Day, the first single off the album, was the song I knew and enjoyed. The rest of the album, at first listen, sounded like a pretty big departure from his last album.

But I somehow knew that it would take more than one listening to really evaluate it. And even though my initial reaction was a bit of surprise (considering how much I liked his last album, Youth), I listened to it more.

And I ended up really liking it.

But in Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, he argues that "our initial, intuitive response to a person, object, or event — the one that transpires in the first few milliseconds of our exposure to it — is often the one that proves to be correct."

While Blink is probably Gladwell's weakest book, he's basically arguing that we have a gut instinct, and most of the time, it's right. I think we can all agree with that.

But there's something different about music. When it's good, we know right away. When it's not obviously good, you need to listen to it again to figure out how you feel.

Maybe it's because music has a way of growing on you. But I'm not sure 100%.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

Why Personal Branding Doesn't Really Work

Posted by junger - 10/20/09 at 07:10:06 am

Let me just say this up front: I think personal branding is a sham. The idea that you can have one thing that consistently defines you in all contexts of your life is ridiculous.

It's impossible to have one marketable brand that you can apply to every community you belong to. You can be "that guy" in specific circles — the rugby guy to your sports friends, or the photoshop guy to your tech friends — but the only thing you can be across group lines is yourself.

So if you have any depth of character whatsoever, you can't honestly say that only one thing defines you.

You may love playing poker, but unless you're a professional, what you do for a living also defines you. You may be Catholic, but if you blog about food, you've got more than one brand.

Since out of everyone in the world, the person I know the best is myself, take a look at how I could be defined:

• web guy
• tech/gadgets guy
• writer/blogger/journalist
• jewish guy
• orioles/ravens fan
• husband/dad/son/brother/uncle
• wordpress guru
• podcaster/video talent
• music lover
• tv/movies/entertainment fan
• and probably more. For sure more.

(Marci Alboher explains this best with her slash mentality; we are not just one thing, we are bloggers/speakers/consultants/ …)

So, the question becomes: how you combine all of the things that make you up into one brand?

You can't. Except to say that you are your brand.

Jason Unger is my brand. But that doesn't define me in a "personal branding" sense, which would rather me be the "wordpress guy" or the "lover of 24." It simply says that I am the sum of my parts. Which is true.

While it is also true that I am a "wordpress guy" and "lover of 24," these stereotypes don't matter out of context.

But that doesn't mean they can't connect. In fact, it's when the your multiple brands collide that you have the opportunity to benefit.

And when that happens, your branding simply becomes your name. Not your area of expertise or passion. You.

So don't try and define yourself by one brand that doesn't fit all of your contexts. The only universal personal brand is your name.

Keeping Clean In Order to Get Things Done

Posted by junger - 10/12/09 at 06:10:01 pm

As I've been realizing my changing priorities and outlook for the future, I've been coming back to one word that defines my nature: clean.

I like things clean. Not just free from dirt clean, but simple clean, too.

For this blog, as I looked over themes galore to find one that I really liked — and would continue to like in the future — I needed it to be clean. The design had to be simple. Not overwhelming. Nice use of colors, but not too much.

(FYI, I'm using a self-enhanced version of the GimpStyle theme.)

At home, I tend to clean up a lot. Not because the place is overly messy, but because I like it to be clean. In fact — and you can ask Debbie this — whenever I'm in a bad mood or mad about something, I tend to clean. Don't ask me why. I just do it.

My desk is normally pretty clean. I have a great glass tabletop desk, with my iMac, all-in-one printer, cordless phone and pen tray. But then there's my big-ass laptop sitting there, which doesn't really belong on the desk. But I always end up using it for something.

Penelope says that having a messy desk can hurt your career — and points to FBI data that says "people with messy offices are less efficient, less organized and less imaginative then people with clean desks."

I think I need to be clean in order to get things done. That seems like common sense, though, right? The less you're distracted by all the stuff out of place, the more you can do.

Maybe that's why I'm sitting in the dark right now. So I can't see the mess in my office while I write this.

Even Heroes Need Time To Find Themselves

Posted by junger - 10/09/09 at 10:10:37 am

I love Heroes. Or, should I say, I loved Heroes.

The show's first year was one of the best seasons of television, ever, up there with the first seasons of Veronica Mars and, yes, even 24.

The writing was great. The story came together in ways you'd never expect. And it always left you wanting more. (I was even going to a buy an extinct technology just so I could watch it in high-def.)

When the second season came around, it hit the usual sophomore slump. It was okay; not as good as the previous year, but worth watching. The third season was completely all over the place.

But the writers are doing something interesting with the current season. They're not coming back with a "bigger is better" plotline, or even doing a ton of marketing for the show. Instead, they're doing the opposite.

They're letting it rest in neutral, until they can really figure out what they should be doing.

Sure, stuff is happening, but nothing big. And even though it doesn't make for must-see-TV, it's probably the right thing to do.

When I got laid off this summer, it was almost a blessing in disguise. It wasn't a shocker; times were tough, nobody seemed happy and priorities changed everyday.

At the same time, I was pretty much directionless. I knew a change was needed. Hell, I had three interviews the week they let me go. And turning down the subsequent job offer was probably the best thing I could do.

When you're lost, you can't expect to find your way by continuing to do the same things. You need a chance to catch your breath and discover what works for you.

Even if you're in neutral for awhile, doing nothing is better than going in reverse. That just makes it harder to find where you should be going.