|Artwork by Tarek Chemaly|
In a different conversation with someone else, his main criteria from picking "man of the year" was the number of active accounts that man's company had, "they bring in advertising for our publication you see." Of course, silly me! The man he was speaking of had an incredibly unremarkable year, no better and no worse than the ones before it, but - hey - electing him man of the year would make him the goose that lays the golden eggs.
A certain choice was based on - again from the words of a person who named a specific person - "but he's been in the industry for so long". I waited for the sentence to be continued, but apparently, that was not a comma but a full point. So, based on the number of years - never mind that the man's performance for the last two decades was much less than interesting and that he relented his position to his children, he still got to be "man of the year" along with the accolades that come with it.
As you see, "man of the year" basically is a whimsical choice based mainly on shifting historico-economico-religious criteria with a generous sprinkle of many other unforeseen elements.
Next year, I am proposing to elect a dinosaur for that title. I mean, why not? My reasons are just as logical as the ones mentioned above!