About Joe Bramhall

Hi, I’m a PC.

If you were casting for the new spate of “Get a Mac” ads from Apple touting their newest line of Intel-based computers, I would have been the perfect candidate for the role of Windows PC played so expertly by John Hodgman. I’ve used Microsoft’s operating system pretty much my whole computing life; I’ve even argued its superiority over other systems. Not that I actually think it’s superior, mind you: I’m well aware of all the buggery, drawbacks and potholes inherent in Windows, but I know they exist and I know how to work around those. It’s a functional dysfunctional relationship.

At least it was until this week. I finally made the move and bought myself a new iMac from Apple, and the tipping point was Microsoft’s latest version of Windows, Vista. Released a few weeks ago, this new operating system promises to be a big improvement over past versions of Windows, with better security, an easier-to-use interface, and more features for managing digital entertainment. Phooey, I say. I’m convinced that Vista will be just as buggy, just as bloated, and even more expensive in the long run than Windows XP ever was. And hence the switch. I have gone over to the other side.

Not that it will mean anything to Bill Gates and Microsoft. Commanding about 95% of the operating system market, the company and its founder stand to reap huge returns as home users and businesses are forced to upgrade to this new system. PC makers such as Hewlett-Packard also stand to gain from users who decide to just replace their older PCs rather than deal with the hassle of upgrading the OS. So my decision not to invest in more Windows ware will have negligible impact on the Wintel universe, but it has already made a huge improvement in my relationship with computers.

So now, as funny and entertaining as they are, you can stop showing me all those Apple ads, Steve Jobs.

Bye, I’m a Mac.

If it’s true that baseball is as American as hot dogs, apple pie, and other things that might be mentioned in a Chevrolet ad, then Liberty Media Holdings is about to get a whole lot more USA-ified. The media holding company controlled by John Malone announced this week that it is buying the Atlanta Braves from Time Warner in a deal that would value the team at $450 million. The Braves are one of the elite teams in Major League Baseball so it seems like a home-run deal, but does Liberty run the risk of striking out?

Corporate ownership of sports teams, especially those of the baseball variety, has seen its fair share of errors the past decade or so. Disney tried to diversify into sports ownership back in 1995 when it bought a 25% stake in the Anaheim Angels (now known by the jaw-bone straining name Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim). Under the ownership of the Mouse House, the Angels failed to compete for years until finally building a winner, culminating in their first-ever World Series title in 2002. But, by then, Disney had already decided to bench its sports interests and sold the team to Arturo Moreno the next year.

News Corp., too, took a swing at being a baseball owner when it bought the Los Angeles Dodgers through Fox Entertainment Group in 1998. Like their neighbors in Anaheim, the Dodgers did not prosper under the ownership of a media titan, and in 2004 Fox sold the team to Frank McCourt.

Now Time Warner, which has owned the Braves since acquiring Turner Broadcasting in 1996, has decided to call the game on account of high payroll costs and too little financial return. Back in 1976 when Ted Turner first bought the Braves, the investment made sense: His fledgling TBS Superstation needed programming, and the Braves needed a TV broadcasting partner. But for a multi-billion dollar media conglomerate with dozens of TV outlets to feed, the small amount of profit that a baseball team can generate just isn’t worth the hassle.

The big question, of course, is how does owning a baseball team make business sense for Liberty. The holding company owns stakes in pay TV company Starz Entertainment and the Game Show Network cable channel, as well as Time Warner, News Corp., and IAC/InterActiveCorp. Maybe Malone plans to hawk Braves merchandise through QVC or offer programming to hotel guests through On Command. Maybe this is just the first move in a bigger game that will see Liberty make a serious investment in a regional or national broadcasting operation. Or maybe John Malone is just a really big baseball fan.

In less than a week the big players will get out on the field and put all their talent and training on the line in a bid for glory in the Super Bowl. No, I’m not talking about the Indianapolis Colts or the Chicago Bears, I’m talking about the real stars of the show: the advertisers.

Once again it’s time for that great American spectacle, the four-hour long championship game that annually blitzes the country with splashy, over-the-top commercials that everyone will be talking about the next day. According to some reports, 30-second ad spots are selling for a record $2.6 million, up slightly from last year’s record price of $2.5 million. And why wouldn’t companies pay that kind of premium? About 90 million people in the US alone are expected to tune in to the National Football League title match, making it still the biggest media event of the year.

What can we expect from this year’s competition? Most advertisers are keeping details of their campaigns close to the vest to maximize the surprise factor. Beer maker Anheuser-Busch has leaked a few details, including the fact that NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt Jr., will star in one spot, and that another will feature a couple who pick up a creepy hitchhiker. (The company claims they are not intentionally trying to ride the coat tails of the recently released remake of The Hitcher. No, of course not.)

Another Super Bowl spot that has already made headlines is a campaign by insurance company Nationwide featuring Britney Spears’ recently dumped husband, Kevin Federline. The ad plays up the company’s slogan “Life Comes at You Fast” by depicting K-Fed as a fallen rap star now working in a fast food joint. (Art imitating life, or life imitating art? You be the judge.) Funny as that might sound, the National Restaurant Association was not amused, firing off a missive saying the TV ad is a “strong and direct insult to the 12.8 million Americans who work in the restaurant industry.” Some people have no sense of humor, I guess.

There is even a rumor floating in the blogosphere that Apple is planning to run an ad to make a big announcement. Excitement is running especially high for this one because the computer maker made a big splash in 1984 with its 1984 inspired ad for the first Macintosh computer. Many point to that event as the beginning of our national love affair with Super Bowl ads. (Thanks again, Apple.)

We’ll find out Monday morning who the winners and losers were when all the morning TV shows trot out their marketing experts to show the best and the worst ads. Oh, and what about that game with the big men in pads? Whatever.

Despite the foreign policy position of our present administration, I would venture that most Americans harbor no real ill-feelings toward other countries. I would even say that many people in this country would like for the United States to be liked again in the international community. But there is one point of contention between the people of this country and all the others in the world: We’re just not into soccer.

Football, as it is called everywhere else, is without question the most popular sport in the world, and perhaps in the entire universe. It boasts a fan base that literally counts in the billions. Everywhere on this planet people enjoy watching the action on the pitch, except for here in the United States. There are a lot of theories out there as to why this is, and many have tried over the years to change our collective mindset, but still we just don’t seem to be interested.

The latest attempt to boost the standing of soccer in this country came late last week when the L.A. Galaxy of Major League Soccer signed international superstar and former Real Madrid player David Beckham to a five-year contract. Widely reported to be worth $250 million, the deal will actually pay the former English team captain about $10 million a year [subscription required], according to the Wall Street Journal, with endorsements that could amount to $25 million a year. Still, that’s a big bet on the power of one man to change our minds about a sport we have largely ignored over the years. Of course, Galaxy owner Philip Anschutz has the billions to make this sort of gamble.

Without a doubt, Becks is a huge celebrity and an international icon. Already news of the deal has spiked ticket sales for Galaxy home games this season. But will bringing in one of the biggest stars in international football have a lasting effect on America’s attitude toward the sport? The jury will obviously be out on that question for some time, but there’s very little evidence to suggest this gamble will really pay off.

Back in the 1970s, remember, the New York Cosmos of the now defunct North American Soccer League brought in Pelé, the biggest star of his time, to stir up interest. But attendance across the league still fell far short of other sports.

Certainly the MLS will get a bit more coverage on ESPN and from other news outlets this year and maybe the next, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run. Will Beckham perform well with his new team? Will he even stick around for the full term of his contract? Unless I’m very wrong and out of touch with my countrymen and women, I seriously don’t think many will care.

Are you ready for even more football? ESPN certainly hopes so. The top cable sports channel, which this season took over the venerable Monday Night Football franchise, inked a five-year broadcasting deal this month with the Arena Football League that will put at least 26 games on ESPN, ESPN2, and ABC starting next year. As part of the deal, ESPN also gained a minority stake in the indoor football league, a move that suggests the sports network will be pulling out all the stops to promote the AFL.

Over the past five years that the AFL was broadcast on NBC, I doubt I saw much if any screen time devoted to arena football coverage on ESPN, and little mention of it on its top-ranked Web site. But given that the self-proclaimed Worldwide Leader in Sports has a virtual iron lock on what is and isn’t news in sports entertainment these days, I’m sure we’ll be hearing all about the joys and thrills of indoor football in the months to come.

Looking at the announced TV schedule for 2007, it’s interesting to note that of the 18 regular season games, 11 of those contests involve either the Chicago Rush or the Philadelphia Soul. What’s interesting about that is ESPN personality and former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka bought a stake in the Chicago franchise. Ron Jaworski, another ESPN announcer, is president of the Philadelphia team. I’m guessing there might be some finger wagging by the network’s ombudsman about that.