TikTok baby-naming consultants find another way to make easy money

If younger millennials or members of Gen Z don't have enough on their plates with their random boycotts and love of avocado toast and their insistence that their parents ruined the world by purchasing homes for $29 back in the 1980s, they now have a new stresser: Naming their children.

It's not just the idea of coming up with the right names – every generation has dealt with that since we stopped naming our children Bradson and Braddotter. But now there's a significant subset that feels like they need the advice of social media influencers to pick the right name.

According to an article on Axios, parents are now hiring TikTok personalities to help them name their children, with an eye toward "cultivating their child's future persona."

Yes. That's right. People are paying TikTok stars $250 for a 10-name package or $400 for a 30-name package of baby names. They do that rather than buying a baby name book (the most popular version sells for $17 on Amazon) or throwing out options until there's an agreement ("How about Jack? Melvin? What about O.J.? What do you think of Max? How about Scout? How about Fin? What do you think of Gronk? Sputnik?").

There are at least four major problems with this approach.

First is that TikTok personalities likely have a variety of lists, maybe sorted by some input you give them. You're not getting unique names, you're getting names from the list by the guy who does funny videos of him making his dog's breakfast (I don't use TikTok. I'm guessing).

The second major problem is that choosing your child's name to "help with their branding" in the future supposes that the future will be the same as the present. Here's all I know: The world 20 years from now will be different. Just think, in 2004, Beyonce was really popular in music; LeBron James was one of the best players in the NBA; a "Planet of the Apes" movie was in theaters and "The Simpsons" was still on TV, years after it debuted. OK, just take my word for it, it was different.

We know the world in 2044 will be different than it is now. For starters, TikTok won't be a big deal (in 2004, TheFacebook (a year away from rebranding as Facebook) launched for college students. while Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Reddit, Snapchat and yes, TikTok didn't exist).

The third problem is that a TikTok influencer isn't going to give you anything unusual.

The Axios story said that most parents want something interesting. Not one of the top 100 names from the annual Social Security Administration list (which includes Ezra, Thiago, Nova, Kinsley and Lyla in 2023), but maybe in the range of 300 to 400 (Karson? Harley?).

That fact is connected to the fourth problem: I could do this for less money and so could anyone else (Hint: Bradley was No. 359 last year, right in the sweet spot!)

These new parents are hiring someone to do exactly what the rest of us did without paying a "celebrity" to assist us: Pick a name that's not weird, but not overly common and projects something positive.

Let's push forward 20 years, to a post-TikTok world. You're one of those parents who paid for a consultant and in 2044, your child asks you how you picked "Waylon" or "Wren" as their name. You have to explain that it was on the advice of someone who made pogo-stick video shorts (again, I don't have a TikTok account). What's worse, you'll have to explain that you were stressed out because you wanted to post your announcement of the name on Instagram (which won't exist anymore).

Here's a simpler method, from someone who helped name two sons: Just pick a good name. Look at the Social Security list. Buy a baby name book. Think about relatives or celebrities or characters you admire. 

Save yourself the stress and the $400 and save the world from TikTok celebrities who earn extra money selling lists of names after making short videos of them lip-syncing to a Janet Jackson song (again, I'm not on TikTok).

And remember, Bradley ranked 359th last year.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Work smarter, not harder to understand business buzzwords

If you've ever sat in a business strategy session, you know what it's like to be on the bleeding edge.

But if you didn't understand that sentence, you've got a lot in common with most Americans.

A recent survey by VoiceNation revealed which business buzzwords are most misunderstood by  Americans. The conclusion was that business leaders – or people who think they're insiders – often use terms to dazzle us. The wind up confusing us.

That happens when they use phrases from "bleeding edge," (misunderstood by 40% of those surveyed) to "not enough bandwidth" (misunderstood by 10% of those surveyed). 

Business jargon is silly. And prevalent. It's not new: Business buzzwords are a longtime menace.

In the late 1980s, a certain Daily Republic executive loved business jargon. He was a faithful reader of Tom Peters, a business management author, and apparently latched onto whatever was new. The two things I heard him say the most (and I wasn't around him much, so either he said these constantly or he said them in situations where the sports editor was present) were to "work smarter, not harder," (which doesn't make sense and doesn't rhyme in print) and to describe something as a "paradigm shift."

I'd roll my eyes whenever I heard those phrases. Now I know I'm not alone.

It's not just buzzwords. Several years ago, when I started my current job, someone talked about C-level executives. I thought they meant sea-level executives, which made little sense to me (executives who work in San Francisco and Miami?). Instead, they meant – of course –  executives with "Chief" in their title. Chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief information officer. Chief Boyardee?

All areas of life trend toward clichés. I've spent much of my adult life aware of the danger of churchy words that make Christianity seem like an insider's game (phrases like "missional" and "hedge" and "emergent.") The same is true with sports (" two-way player" and "check-down pass" and "Mendoza line") and virtually everywhere else.

But business people may be the worst and the survey showed some of the phrases that are most misunderstood . . . including by me.

The most misunderstood buzzword phrase in the VoiceNation surve was "boil the ocean," (61% didn't understand) which apparently means to make or try something ridiculously difficult (like understanding the phrase "boil the ocean."). Second is COP, which means close of play (the end of something) and was misunderstood by 56% of those surveyed. I've never heard either of the phrases, but it's probably a matter of time.

Buzzword phrases sneak into the language. Over the past decade or so, more and more business people who want to be seen as innovative repeat variations of "disruption" as if it's the answer to everything. "Let's disrupt our industry!" they'll say, as if that's the only way to succeed. "We need to be disruptors!"

Well if we're going by the actual definition of "disrupt," Enron disrupted the energy industry as much as Tesla disrupted the auto industry. Lehman Brothers disrupted the banking industry as much as Apple disrupted the computer industry.

Then again, I'm not on the bleeding edge because I've never used the term "idea shower," other than to describe the time when I was showering and thought it would be a good idea to require an NFL coach who loses a "challenge" to play two or three downs without gear.

According to VoiceNation, people aged 55-64 (my demographic) struggled the most with buzzwords, which seems right. After all, we've lived through periods of synergy, paradigm shifts, interfacing, low-hanging fruit and bottom line.

All of those are buzzwords. None are good choices. And COP, to speak like that is to boil the ocean.

And never forget that the people who want you to work smarter, not harder really want you to do both, which is a real paradigm shift.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Longing for motorcycle jumps, Ali title fights and more from my youth

We live in a time of unprecedented abundance of television sports: Multiple ESPN channels, two Fox Sports channels, CBS Sports Network, NBC Sports regional networks, TBS and TNT, Amazon, other streaming networks, etc.

Still, many events (or sports TV shows) from my childhood are missing and I'd watch them if they were on now.

It's not just barrel jumping and cliff diving on "Wide World of Sports," (although I'd watch those). It's not just start-up leagues like the World Football League, United States Football League, American Basketball Association and others (although modern alternative leagues would make sports better if they tried to compete with, rather than supplement, the existing leagues). And it's not even TV trash shows like "Battle of the Network Stars," (which, if it aired now, would feature no one I recognize).

Every year, I watch "ESPN Ocho," when the ESPN networks feature dumb sports like the Excel championships, pillow-fighting competitions, beer mug-holding championships and more. But I still miss some sports that should exist but don't.

For instance:

The Superstars. This is at the top of my list, a show launched in 1973 to match elite athletes against each other in sports they didn't play professionally. You'd see NFL stars, NBA stars, baseball stars, boxers, track athletes and golfers compete in bike races, obstacle courses and weightlifting. It felt like a real way to determine the best athlete and allow people to show how good (or bad) they were outside their area of expertise. We saw Lynn Swann hurdle the obstacle course high-jump bar! We saw Joe Frazier nearly drown in a pool!

Major network events. The era of big exotic sports events came back briefly during the COVID-19 pandemic when Tiger Woods and Peyton Manning played golf against Phil Mickelson and Tom Brady to break the ice for sports on TV. Back in the day, there were a lot of major events on networks, often at night. Heavyweight championship fights. The famous Billie Jean King-Bobby Riggs tennis match. Now that I think about it, it was mostly heavyweight championship fights involving Muhammed Ali. Perhaps I just want boxing to matter again.

The International Race of Champions. This was an auto racing series in which the drivers competed on different types of tracks in cars set up identically by a single pit crew. It combined drivers of Indy cars, NASCAR, sports car and sprint cars. The series was important on TV through the late 1970s and survived until 2008 (although I didn't watch any races for the final 25 years). In an era when more people are watching Formula 1 races, wouldn't you like to see Max Verstappen drive against NASCAR and Indy drivers? I would.

Motorcycle Racing on Ice. This was a "Wide World of Sports" staple, with motorcycles featuring small spikes on their tires. It seemed super dangerous, but I never saw anyone wreck, let alone get run over by a spiky tire. Still . . . it was thrilling.

Motorcycle jumps. If you're younger than 45, this seems impossible, but there was an era when much of America turned in to watch a man in a red-white-and-blue uniform jump his motorcycle over a series of buses. Or cars. Or the fountain at Ceasar's Palace in Las Vegas. Or launch a rocket over the Snake River Canyon in Idaho. Evel Knievel's jumps were 90 seconds of drama at the end of 90 minutes of buildup. I'd watch them now.

The lesson? Sports is great on TV. And nostalgia can even make dumb things (motorcycle racing on ice? Joe Frazier swimming in "The Superstars?") seem great.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

My car, a (possibly) endangered species and wetlands preservation

I drive an environmentally friendly car. A seriously environmentally friendly vehicle.

Sure, it's a hybrid, but it's more than that.

The truth became obvious a few weeks ago when I took my 2005 Prius in for an oil change and 5,000-mile checkup. You know the drill: check fluid levels, the air filter and whatever else happens to be under the hood (I'm ignorant about cars, so I presume there's other stuff too. A power train? Maybe? I'm not sure).

Later that day, my car guy called to tell me two things:

• They'd found the nest a varmint around the engine.
• They'd removed "two or three gallons" of water from the spare tire wheel well under the hatchback.

Yeah. A small animal and two or three gallons of water.

First, the water: The volume shocked me, but the concept didn't. I knew there was a water problem in my car.

Over the past couple of winters, I've had a problem with condensation on the inside of my windows, particularly the back window. I realized I had a leak because the carpet in the back was wet.

Not soaked, just damp. I presumed the hatchback wasn't tightly sealed. It's an old car.

I had to run my defroster at full power every day. Both front and back. On some days – particularly cold days – I'd need to wipe the windows with a towel. On really, really cold days, there was ice on the inside of my back window.

So yeah, a water problem.

However, I presumed it was just a leak. I'd wait for the weather to get hot, leave my windows cracked, and all that moisture could evaporate.

I had no idea it was worse than that. I had no idea I had two or three gallons of water in the spare tire wheel well. Until I got the call.

Ugh.

The idea of a small animal nesting around my motor (or whatever a hybrid has. There's a battery and some sort of engine there. Again, I don't understand cars.) was surprising, but not shocking. I've heard similar stories from others and Mrs. Brad and I recently were gone for a month, which is when I presume the rat (squirrel? mouse? weasel? porcupine?) made its nest. Once we returned, I drove the car nearly every day and parked it in different places, so I presume the rat (raccoon? beaver? guinea pig?) had to find a new home while leaving the nest.

Fortunately, the rat (hamster? lemming? gerbil?) didn't chew through wires, so it was just a matter of removing the nest and nuts (yes! Nuts. Was it a squirrel?). And getting all that water out.

The good news? My car is fine. There's no damage from the little animal nor from the water.

The better news? My car isn't just a vehicle, it's an ecosystem. In addition to saving gas, it has provided a home for a (possibly) endangered species while serving as a water source. It's a habitat.

Next time I take it to the shop (probably next year, when I've put another 5,000 miles on it), I may ask the Environmental Protection Agency for a grant to cover the costs.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.