IntroductionMy interest in naming the decade began when USA Today published an article in early 1999, revealing that we were standing on the threshold of a nameless decade. The problem they were encountering was no word adequately described the soon-approaching decade following the nineties. In my opinion, this nameless, faceless decade had to be named!
Difference Between Name and MeaningThe most important thing that I want to touch upon is the misconception people have about naming the decade and its meaning. As you will see, they are two separate problems.
To appropriately create a meaning for the decade, you must first explore what that decade represented. Topics, important events or a cultural movement are some of the many things that can define this space of time. But how can you create a meaning for a decade that has not yet occurred? No matter how early into this decade we are, the only way to accurately analyze what this decade is all about is to wait until it is over and done with.
For example, the seventies is remembered as the decade of decadence, it also can be visually represented by a disco ball. The twenties is remembered as the “Roaring Twenties.” It is here that we run into our problem. The current decade has barely begun, so creating a meaning is useless and not the real issue.
Further, the “nineties” is not an all–encompassing term illustrating the previously–mentioned point of creating a meaning for the decade. Rather, the “nineties” simply illustrate that this is the time period between 1990 and 1999. The problem we face is that in trying to name the decade, we can only come up with a word representing a 1990-ish term which brings us back to our dilemma: We need to create a word to identify this period of time.
However, creating a word for this decade leads to specific complications as well.
The first complication is that creating a word for this decade is not the complete issue. The issue stems from the missing word that groups the numbers between zero and nine, similar to that of past decades which were referred to by this system (twenties, thirties, forties). Grouping those numbers is the ultimate goal which would name this decade as well. For the rest of this publication, creating a word that groups the numbers between zero and nine is used interchangeably with the phrase “naming the decade.”
The Decade-Naming FormulaAt no other point in our history has an opportunity like naming the decade ever surfaced because we have never been confronted with a need. Past decades have been produced and used by numbers. Each decade is represented by a number (ie: twenties, thirties, etc.) But here’s the problem: Up until now there has been no way in which to group the numbers between zero and nine. We have a name for every other grouping of numbers except the single digits. (Not exactly, the numbers between 10 and 19 fall into this dilemma as well because these numbers are referred to as either ten’s or teen’s which doesn’t work for the decade per se.) The reason? There is no common factor. The numbers between twenty and twenty–nine all have the word “twenty” in common. The numbers between zero and nine have no common denominator. So the problem with naming the decade is not only about coming up with a new name as much as coming up with a word that will simply group these numbers together.
In hindsight, why haven’t these numbers already been grouped together? The numbers between zero and nine are individual and have absolutely nothing in common with each other, right? Wrong, the numbers between zero and nine do have one thing in common, they are all single digits. So the word that springs to mind that highlights the common denominator is the UNIES.
The “unies” is a perfect term that speaks for itself. Its a mathematical answer. The prefix “uni” means one (single digits) and can also be looked upon as a means to unify, or bring together which is exactly what we are trying to accomplish.
Now that we have laid the groundwork, let’s see how the “unies” works in a decade name formula. This formula has three facets: creating a word that actually groups the numbers between zero and nine; making the new decade name similar to past decade names; and checking whether the new name works in other areas.
The first facet of the formula was to create a word grouping the numbers between zero and nine. This was accomplished in the preceding paragraphs.
The second facet was to make the new decade name similar to other decade names. For example, every other decade name ends in “-ies.” Most other decade names have two syllables, except for the seventies, depending on how fast you say it. The “unies” also has an “ies” ending and has two syllables.
The third facet was to check as to whether the new name worked in other areas where numbers are used. When we consider a word that names the decade, we must examine whether the name makes sense as a whole because previous decade names are apparent in such areas as temperature and age.
Using the word “nineties” as our example, we see a simple, obvious word relevant to those who lived through that decade. When considering a word for the new decade, the same obviousness must show through in order for the name to be successful, accepted and remembered.
Temperature, in regard to weather would also benefit from this new word. The temperature ranging from zero to nine degrees can be regarded as a sub-group. The terms associated with this would be upper–, mid–, and lower. For all practical purposes the “unies” works well in this area too, “Temperatures will dip between the mid to upper ‘unies’.”
Age is another area that would benefit from this new word, “I have two children, one is in their twenties and my baby boy is in his ‘unies’.”
Congratulations, The “unies” is a Survivor of the decade naming formula, but just because a new word for the decade exists and works, doesn’t mean much. There are tremendous obstacles to get the name or word to go public.
How will a word fall into mainstream?
How will this decade get named?Our situation relies on a theory in which we must analyze the influencing factor in the media. Does the media influence society or does society influence the media? By now it should be evident that both cases are correct depending on the circumstance. Naming the new decade falls into this loop hole.
Unfortunately, the media has taken a back seat on promoting this concept. The reason is that the media is waiting for the public to create the name for this decade. If they were to name the decade, they would be making news, not reporting it. So I believe it is safe to assume that the name of the new decade will not come from the media.
As far as the public is concerned, there is hardly a chance to create a word! The public does not have the media access to reach large proportions, plus it takes tremendous resilience.
Ryan Guerra is trying to name the decade, unfortunately it is becoming quite expensive. It is estimated that millions of dollars are required to name, publicize and promote the new decade name. Naming the decade could be considered comparable to the promotion of bands, movies, businesses and public relations, with one slight difference: there are no products or services involved. Dr. Allan Fried, former professor at USC stated, “It would take 1.2 million dollars to get a logo recognized in the public eye.” Realistically, I could only cater to a handful of people because it is too cost prohibitive to advertise to the general public. In addition to advertising, the media is a key ingredient for the success of naming the new decade. You can do your own public relations, but ultimately even this becomes costly.
CompetitionWhat other names are being used?
An internet website (www.namingthedecade.com) literally listed hundreds of possibilities. Many of them were ludicrous, but two have remained; the “two-thousands” and the “aughts.”
What are the “aughts”? The dictionary defines the “aughts” as zero.
Therefore, the “aughts” were created simply because all other decades used an abbreviated version (ie: ‘94 or ‘67). So the other decade names focused in on the first digit of the abbreviated version, 9 and 6 respectively, which we understand as ninety and sixty. The “aughts” try to follow form and focus on the first digit of the abbreviated years between ‘00 and ‘09. This idea is not correct because the digit before the number is meaningless when the numbers are between zero and nine.
Have you ever heard anybody count using the words “zero-zero, zero-one, etc?” The zero is deleted, but in terms of the decade, zero-one would now be “aught-one.” The zero before and after all numbers are useless, (ie: 0000000001. or 1.000000000). The “aughts” just don’t do it.
Consider the other term “two-thousands.” This is a silly idea because the entire millennium would be classified as the two-thousands. It would be like saying I was born in the 1900’s. The 1900’s gives no reference to which decade I was born.
These two attempts to name the decade do not stand firm through all the obstacles faced when naming the decade, mainly because they miss the point of simply trying to group the numbers between zero and nine like the “unies” does. But who has authority to say this?
Decade Naming AuthorityAuthority is one of the obstacles you run into when trying to accomplish such a task. Let’s face it, you can’t go to a certain school, receive a degree and proclaim the authority of a decade–naming expert.
If no one can assign themselves the responsibility to name the decade, how will it be identified? Who is qualified for such a unique task? What qualifications would that person have? I believe that anyone with enough tenacity, intelligence, motivation and persistence will get the job done. Written documentation validating a person as a decade-naming expert is not necessary.
Who has the authority to name the decade? Ryan Guerra.
The Making Of The UniesThe day that turned my life into a visionary was like any other day. I went to the cafeteria at University of South Carolina–home to the now famous Lou Holtz Gamecocks–to take a lunch break and get my daily dose of news via USA Today. Not looking for anything in particular, I ran across an article that mentioned the missing way to pronounce the coming decade since this was still the nineties. The article reckoned this event as important as the Y2K dilemma, but they made a valid point: our language system has no way to classify this coming decade. All for the sake of a little mental gymnastics, I began to come up with my own solution to this problem.
The “single digits” and the “zeros” were the first two ideas that came to mind, but they both sounded weird. Within seconds I realized that every answer would sound weird. So in order to eliminate the oddity, I figured whatever word that was created must sound as phonetically close to the other decade names. Also, what made other decade names was the commonality between each number within the decade. The most distinguishing factor about the numbers between 2000 and 2009 is that they are all just one digit. I was in search of a word that meant one, since “single digits” just didn’t do it.
I tossed the idea around in my head while enjoying the delicious cafeteria roast beef sandwich and a small bag Lays of salt & vinegar Lays potato chips. Meanwhile, the answer was literally right above my nose. For years people made jokes about the missing space between my eyebrows which is known as a uni-brow. So, from all the years of character-building abuse, the “unies” were born.
“Unies…unies,” I said it over and over and every time the word came out my mouth, it sunk deeper and deeper. The “unies,” that was it! The answer was born to the world; well, at least myself.
The newspaper made a reference to a future article that would continue the search for reader input to the decade name question. Like a faithful contestant, I bought each paper looking for updated articles, but realized that it would only be found on the USA Today website.
USA Today’s website had about forty suggestions and like a child reading a birthday card on his birthday, I tossed out the meaningless information in search of the money, where was my suggestion for the “unies.”
There was absolutely no mention of the “unies” whatsoever! This did not lead to disappointment. I felt special. Could I be the only one who thought of it? Hopefully!
For about a week I continually thought about all the suggestions and USA Today’s attempt to end the debate. Well, USA Today did nothing to end this debate, they only got it started. USA Today’s website took an unbiased approach in trying to find this mysterious word. They said the public had chosen the “aughts,” which was the word that the first article said had the most historic value.
Bummed, upset and realizing USA Today did nothing to end the debate, I decided to call the news medium myself. This took some time and was not easy. I found a contributing writer who rekindled my disappointment when he said that it was not up to them to name the decade. Their job was to only report the problem.
Wow, what the heck did that mean? Their reply cost about $50,000 dollars. That’s right! Since I was a college student about to graduate I knew what they were talking about. The media can only report the news, they don’t make the news.
Another disappointing moment: the media would not listen or promote my answer. Now what? Well, I wondered what other media outlets would be bold enough to promote the crazy idea of naming the decade? My answer quickly turned to the trendsetters for pop–culture, MTV.
Spring Break ‘99! I had a ticket to Amsterdam but some strange force kept me from boarding the plane. Instead, my spring break would include a 14 hour drive to the Big Apple.
Big dreams filled my head as I arrived, believing it would take only a phone call to gain access to the MTV studio. Boy, was I wrong. Here I was dialing MTV’s studio line every second trying to get someone different on the phone who would understand why I was there.
Low and behold, I recognized some dude walking into the building. I didn’t know who he was, but remembered seeing him on MTV. This was my big chance. I caught up to this guy and asked if he was on MTV, he said yes. So I excused myself and dropped the “unies” story, offering him tee-shirts to take with him. The man kindly took the tee-shirts and said he would do his best to give them to the wardrobe people. This was the it, I had arrived!
Yeah, right. Turns out that wasn’t my big chance and nothing came of that encounter. In hindsight, the tee-shirts sucked and the dude was MTV’s Carson Daly.
So the tee-shirts never made it on the air that day nor any other. This would make for one long ride back to Columbia.
The whole ride home I could not help but think about the whole experience. First of all, the tee-shirts were the worst looking shirts I have ever created. To put it bluntly, I wouldn’t even wash my car with them.
Second, this was not a disaster. Who could expect to go to NYC and gain access to every major studio and news outlet? Certainly, nobody. Security is way to tight.
The disappointing ride home somehow changed. I left New York feeling deflated but by the time I reached Columbia the excitement about the “unies” returned.
Well, if took my own advice and the same die hard attitude to the local television stations to see what else I could do. Armed with better tee-shirts, I began the public relations campaign. I went to every local television station and mentioned the missing decade name. I left tee-shirts everywhere.
The very first attempt was a hit. I called up WLTX and believe it or not, they were interested. Every one of the studio members came down to meet me. My first taste of celebrity. They all gathered around and listened to what I had to say. With my knees in firm place, I began to explain why I was there. Wow, what a feeling! I was totally pumped that they cared about the decade name. They said that they loved the idea and they would get back to me in a short time.
Well a short time turned into an eternity. They never got back to me. Then bam, out of the blue, I got the message of a lifetime. Rebecca Lindstrom left a message explaining how she would love to meet me and do an interview. Heck yeah! This was it!
So after 28 hours of driving to New York and giving away 120 free tee-shirts, somebody actually cared about the “unies.”
We worked out a date that I was to be giving tee-shirts out at the University and did an interview. It was the coolest thing, but then came the wait. The interview went well, but then again, I think that everything I do is pretty swell. Rebecca had to follow orders and other things became more important than the “unies.” Are you kidding? The expectation of waiting to see what I created on television became too much for me and led to disappointment. The greatest events in a person’s life can also be the most discouraging.
I finally gave up on the “unies” being televised until I got the phone call: they were going to air it! Hooray! I called nobody. To me, it was the satisfaction of working hard, I wanted to enjoy every minute by myself so nobody could ruin it. It was great but dang, next time I’ll make sure I pluck that famous uni-brow! Honestly I loved every minute, and this opportunity served as a source of encouragement for my next step.
I continued to hit the local market and got the “unies” heard. I talked to everyone. The local
State paper, college newspaper, and the show,
Good Morning Columbia, along with every other media outlet not mentioned. A few mediums supported my efforts in trying to name the decade and I am completely grateful to them and their efforts. What a tribute to hard work and belief in one’s self. The “unies” was slowly becoming a local hit, but I wanted, and continue to want more.
I had a connection with a national magazine where I was interviewed. This interview resulted in a full page layout in their magazine. I greatly appreciate them too.
The “unies” is not finished. I will work on this project for the rest of my life, at least until it gets named the “unies.” But as for now, I’m still working and trying to finish this magazine. Hopefully, I have been able to convince you that the “unies” is a phenomenon in the making!
