So when I see an ad for tampons, I usually keep my thoughts to myself for fear of offending my significant other. To my surprise, men are not the only ones who have  a problem with the way women are portrayed in these ads.

I recently saw an ad for UbyKotex tampons and I literally LOL’d.

The ad pokes fun at the stereotypical tampon ad formula; the running on the beach, twirling, dancing and other ridiculous things that women do in these ads to celebrate the presence of their monthly visitor.

The concept of ads being self-referential and mocking is not new. What is fascinating to me is that it has taken this long for someone in an ad agency to break away from the traditional lame approach to these ads. It makes me wonder if this is the first time a women has actually been involved in the creative process.

Thanks UbyKotex and the agency behind this creative approach. I can finally make fun of tampon ads and not feel guilty about offending anyone (except maybe a few ad execs).

*holds for loud applause*

It’s true. I have let this little project of mine slide to the very bottom of my priority list, but I will not to let it disappear completely. My goal initially was to post 2 – 3 times a week on topics ranging from the state of Canadian TV, to the growth of social media (apparently I’m not alone there). Like the other projects I have left uncompleted, this one become a nagging chore more than a passion. Unlike those other projects, however, this one is begging for attention.

Cholocan, despite my best efforts of procrastination, self-doubt and apathy, keeps looking up at me with digital puppy dog eyes, hoping that I’ll help it grow. So instead of bopping it on the nose with a rolled up newspaper, I’ve decided to listen to its pleas.

I like writing. Well, actually, I like writing when I like what I’ve written. I hate feeling forced to write. I hate writing something I don’t believe in and I really don’t like writing something that I find boring to read (strange thing for a PR professional to say, I know). So when that little voice in my head started saying “so what” after reading a few of my posts, I assumed putting in an effort would be too time-consuming/difficult/expensive/high in calories.

The thing about writing a blog is that, in my experience, you go through this strange sort of identity crisis. Some people refer to this as “finding your voice”. I think of it more as facing your demons, or specifically your inner critic. He’s always there, second-guessing every word choice, paragraph or purposeful grammatical rule breaking. But he doesn’t stop there.

When you finally find the confidence to express yourself and open up to a group of strangers, that little bastard reminds you that you have to maintain your professionalism. You know, digital footprint and all. No point dropping an f-bomb if it’s going to jeopardize your chances of landing your next job. Wait! You can’t say how you REALLY feel about all those social media experts out there. You’ll be ostracized from the imaginary community!

It’s annoying. It’s even worse when you realize that the critic is just you looking for a reason not to try. That goes for anything in life, not just writing.

So as a way of reaching my goals, while telling my inner critic to go fuck himself , I’ve decided to be persistent. I’m going to finish what I’ve started and keep working on Cholocan. I want to nurture this puppy and give it a chance to play, develop a sense of self and, hell, even take a dump on the carpet before I put him to sleep.

Why should you care?

Well, maybe you shouldn’t. I mean, there are so many blogs, Tweets, Diggs and status updates out there that one more writer-wannabe vying for your attention might not be what you need in your life right now. On the other hand, if you can relate in any way to anything I’ve written here, or if you like rooting for the underDOG (last dog reference, I swear!), you should probably check back. I can’t guarantee you’ll fall in love, but for the low, low price of zero, here’s what you’ll get:

• A sexy new redesign for all of you who enjoy a lot of white space
• 2 -3 thought-provoking posts a week that aim to entertain and inform
• Not one word about how I can make you rich with my social media prowess
• Not a single description of what I had for dinner
• A friend.  A real friend. Not one of those gimmicky “online relationships” everyone’s always trying to nurture. I’m talking about a genuine wingman, beers after work, shoulder to cry on, bail you out of jail, back up your lies kind of friend

All I ask is that you give this blog a try, subscribe to the posts and tell everyone you know about this tiny little corner of the internet known as Cholocan.com. I’ll be here, standing at the corner of media and culture.

No animals were harmed in the writing of this post. I kicked my girlfriend’s cat, but that’s about it.

In a Facebook blog post, (RED) CEO Susan Smith Ellis was enthusiastic about the power of social media in furthering their cause. She credits the increase in corporate support to the ”1.5 million people who have joined (RED) via a range of social media.”

Calling attention to the severity of AIDS is a noble cause. But aside from a minor alteration to their Facebook page, how are people participating in the fight against AIDS? How many of the people showing their support online would actually take that commitment further?

I am a proponent of social media as a means of fostering discussion and creating awareness. But I think these online shows of support are much too passive to make any real contribution. Sure, by changing the colour of my font on Twitter, the world can see that I support a worthy cause. But it’s misleading.

The online shows of solidarity are more a sign of conformity than support. Nobody wants to appear as though they don’t support a specific cause. So they join in to showcase their commitment to philanthropy. But really, what will their level of commitment be come December 2?

Creating awareness is clearly the first step in the fight against AIDS. But for organizations like (RED), there has to be a call to action. At least, something more significant than their current strategy of promoting their own products. I understand that those proceeds go to supporting the fight against AIDS, but then the message is that all you need to do to fight AIDS is shop and Tweet.

Is this really what modern-day activism has become?

I realize that of some the people who will use social media to support the fight against AIDS are sincerely engaged and committed to the cause. But, assuming that every temporarily altered profile or tweet equals a legitimate show of support is specious reasoning. While organizations like (RED) are making it easier for everyone to show their support, they should also encourage real participation.

In a blog post yesterday, (RED) put more emphasis on their new corporate partnership and Twitter celebrity endorsements, than on providing options for people to show financial support. For an organization that appreciates the value of social media, you’d think they would embrace the opportunity to speak directly to their audience in an authentic and informative way.

Using Twitter and Facebook to create awareness is a start. But one thing lacking from the (RED) message is a clear and effective call to action that will directly impact the fight against AIDS. One way to do so might be to include a link  for people who prefer to donate directly.

If you’d like to donate directly to the Global Fund, please click here.

I told myself not to write about the Muppets Bhomeniam Rhapsody video that’s floating around online. I figured it would become so popular so quickly that, by the time I got around to it, it would be completely irrelevant.

Sounds like a lesson in procrastination more than anything.

But you know what? Even though it has received over one million views in 24 hours – and been mentioned everywhere, from Maclean’s to Mashable – this video is far from irrelevant. In fact, nothing Muppet-related could ever become irrelevant because those characters appeal to both our childish imagination and our adult sense of nostalgia. That makes it timeless.

Oh and it’s just plain awesome.

Even if it turns out that this video is part of an ad campaign for Viagra or adult diapers,  I will gladly buy whatever they’re selling because the video is just that brilliant.

Special shout-out to Beaker at around the 2 minute mark. That guy is my hero!

So as the two sides battle, adamant that their position is in the best interest of Canadians, it has become obvious that there is no right or wrong in this debate. There is no good guy, despite what those clever TV tax ads suggest. Canadian broadcasters and the cable and satellite distributors — also known as broadcast distribution undertakings (BDUs) – are part of the same content industry in Canada that is expected to provide some programming  that represents the cultural experience of its citizens.

This is why the “bailout” commercials are so ridiculous. The Stop the TV Tax movement (BDU’s) wants to position the broadcasters as failed businesses that are seeking government help. But if the broadcasters are deemed failures, it is just as much a reflection of the BDU’s incompetence and inability to adapt.

Broadcasters and BDU’s need to adapt, and they need to do so by working together.

Each side agrees that this is a matter of a flawed and outdated model for broadcasters. The disagreement lies in who’s responsibility it should be to fix the problem. Negotiating a fee-for-carriage is a start, in that it at least gets the two sides talking, but on its own, it is not a sustainable solution. It is a temporary fix that does nothing to address the underlying problems.

Real progress can only come by way of revamping an outdated and ineffective broadcast model. Which is why this issue is  about more than a potential “tax” for consumers. It’s about the future of Canadian television.

The Good News

If you’re a cable subscriber in Canada, you likely wish you had more choice over which channels you could include in your basic package. Why should we have to pay so much for a basic cable package that has only five or six channels you actually watch?

Michael Geist suggests that the solution may lie in implementing a “a-la-carte” model, where cable subscribers could pick and choose the channels they want. This way, cable companies could provide a basic, all-Canadian package. Anyone interested in supporting local programming could do so by subscribing to this package. This would also prevent cable subscribers from being forced to pay additional fees for channels they didn’t want in the first place.

Canadian broadcasters would receive compensation for their signal and consumers in Canada would have more choice in programming.

The broadcasters have even proposed a similar model. In fact, on November 3, the CBC proposed a “pared-down” model, similar to the one suggested by Geist.

However, this proposed model would not only give the consumer more choice, it also lets them decide the fate of Canadian programming.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater

I’ve seen a lot of reaction online from people who argue that the broadcasters are failing because their programming isn’t good enough. In other words, they don’t deserve any more support because the content they provide isn’t worth saving.

It’s a fair argument.

The only problem with type of thinking is that TV in Canada has always been used as a way of defining and preserving our national identity. Ever since television was first introduced to the world, regulations were put in place to combat the influence from the U.S.

It’s the reason we have a public broadcaster and the reason why every broadcaster is required to provide a certain amount of Canadian content.

But if a new a-la-carte system is put in place, the success of local programming would rely on subscribers. So with an obligation to provide local programming, and a need to increase their number of subscribers, Canadian broadcasters would have to evolve by putting a greater emphasis on producing great content.

With this new model in place, buying syndicated episodes of Seinfeld, and repeating it five times throughout the day, would no longer be a viable option. First, because as a subscriber you could receive American programming by selecting American channels, instead of watching the Canadian feed. Second, anyone paying for an all-Canadian cable package would expect to receive more Canadian content.

If the broadcasters fail to provide local and entertaining programming, they could end up becoming completely irrelevant (even more so), which would arguably compromise our ability to preserve a collective cultural identity.

Whether or not you agree that television should be used to influence cultural identity, there’s no denying that television does have that ability. Which is why every Canadian has a vested interest in saving Canadian television.

Now what?

Revamping the current model for Canadian television should do more than just create better cable packages. The current model for broadcasters is no longer profitable, and part of the reason for that stems from a lack of cooperation between Canadian broadcasters and BDU’s.

The TV Tax debate can be annoying at times (especially those ridiculous ads). But this debate has shown us that there’s more at stake than who’s right and who’s wrong. This is also about more than a potential TV “tax”.

The TV Tax debate has highlighted some seriously outdated approaches to programming that need revision. If the two sides can stop playing the blame game, this debate actually has the potential to reconstruct the current Canadian television system as a whole. In that way, this debate is a good thing.

I’m hopeful that Canadian television is entering an age of improvement. If broadcasters need more engaging and entertaining content, while still representing the Canadian experience, programming needs to evolve. We need a Canadian content industry that is more than just an afterthought or an obligation.

If we really do rely on television as a way of preserving our cultural identity, it’s time to make a successful content industry the priority. The first step is for the broadcasters and BDU’s to start working together, instead of spreading fear to gain public support.