Branding, Culture, Politics, and Everything in Between

The cultural “plight” of the contemporary male in an age of contradicting male roles is one of the most powerful cultural tensions around today, and it has been written about extensively (even I am guilty). It’s a powerful source for brands and other cultural texts to play with cultural fantasies and offer temporary soothing to men. But book called “The Perfect Gift for a Man” is aiming to more than that. It aims to actually give men an outlet to talk about these problems and act as a cultural agent of sorts.

Here’s the description:

Putting our heads together, we hit upon the idea of a self-published book. Blurb.com came to the rescue, providing an easy way for us to design, publish and distribute the book. But then – it was a matter of stories.

Putting the call out, we asked for other men to join us – sharing your thoughts on a blog is one thing – but committing them to print is quite another (plus we needed various disclaimers and so on) – so we didn’t know who would respond.

In the end, 30 writers heeded the call. The resulting book is a compilation of stories about reinventing manhood. It follows the life-arc of a man, from its beginnings through the trials and tribulations, challenges and jubilations that we all face.

I’ll definitely order a copy. 30 different writers writing about their own perceptions of being “male” sounds like a gold mine for different meanings and ideas. If you want to just download the free e-book, just click here.

This made me laugh and think:

It’s a mashup between Star Wars and a news clip that made the rounds a few years ago. It wasn’t the most popular of YouTube clips, but apparently popular enough that it inspired some people to mash it up with something more familiar. I’d like to think that this is sort of a new baseline for how obscure your references and mashups with popular culture can become while still remaining somewhat relevant. No reason to think that mashups like these will become increasingly obscure and weird, pushing our limits of both media and pop culture literacy.

Here’s the original newsclip:

Thanks for the clip, sir

Found this among my drafts. Apparently, I had forgotten to publish it. I had intended to publish this on April Fools.

Scott Brown on Wired: “Humor is the Lingua Franca of the Internet”.

Because “funny” is becoming a language unto itself, the lingua franca of the wired world. You can’t update your Facebook status without a self-deprecating quip. You can’t respond to a Gawker post unless you’ve got something equally snarky to add. Snark, of course, is Web comedy’s most renewable resource. [...] And if you’re still worried about bombing in what is, basically, the world’s biggest, cruelest comedy club, don’t be. I assure you, you’re getting funnier all the time, simply by dint of being plugged into the collective e-conscious and keeping up with the high-bandwidth badinage.

Marshall McLuhan’s first and second laws of media ask what does the new medium enhance or make obsolete in a culture. An instant and participatory medium like the Internet has replaced jokes of the traditional variety (“a Finn, a Norwegian and a Swede walk into a bar…”) by something more instant, more contemporary. Today’s jokes are YouTube clips, PhotoShop manipulations, Facebook comments and the like. In the old days, jokes could be retold over and over, some jokes were deemed “classic” because they were more general and based on timeless notions. But now, jokes have a shelf-life that is measured in weeks, even days.

Granted, “reactionary” jokes are not a new phenomenon (just think of political cartoons and talk show monologues), but the Internet has made them common currency among us regular folk. A good “snark”, as Brown calls it, will not be limited to the cocktail party it was uttered, it can catch on and become sort of the joke of the week. Internet memes are a great example of this. But as said, these kinds of jokes don’t last long, and because of their contextual and contemporary nature, they rarely if ever become classic jokes that stand the test of time.

Kanye West has been under fire a lot lately. First South Park made fun of his out-of-control ego in an episode which West said hurt his feelings, but was also a wake-up call and he promised to deflate his ego a bit. Not too long ago, his outbursts at VMA where he bumrushed the stage during Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech earned him the questionable honor of inspiring one of the year’s most popular Internet memes. Murmus of West’s troubles have only gotten louder, as quite recently he canceled his tour. Meaning-wise, West has bee damaged goods for a while now.

The old way of diffusing this situation would have been for West to go on a few talk shows, publicly apologize to Swift and vow to change. In fact, initially that’s what he did. In the old days, the worst case scenario for West would have been that Saturday Night Live parodies the situation, and even that could have been handled with a guest appearance on the show later on. Problem solved.

But now we live in an age where meaning management is more nuanced and difficult. West’s meaning management efforts are in direct competition with those happening in social media channels, and the most intriguing and culturally relevant meaning will prevail. Going on Jay Leno’s show and saying you’re sorry is calculated, obvious, and uninteresting. It had no chance against the “I’ma let U finish” meme’s cultural momentum.

So what’s Kanye to do? One fairly good solution would have been to confront the meme head on, be seen in a “I’ma let U finish” T-shirt. West could have showed he was aware of his current perception, and he was willing to confront it and even make fun of himself. This, too, could have been seen as a callous and calculated effort though.

Instead, West has gone for something really bold and interesting, something that could in fact trump the meme. He has made a short film with Spike Jonze where he literally rips out his ego from his intestines, and kills it. See the video here.

We’ll see how this rather unusual but highly intriguing mea culpa plays out with the public.

UPDATE The video was taken down from Vimeo, but I posted a new link to it.

/Film reported that there’s a movie in the works based on an article in GQ called “Will You Be My Black Friend?” There was a link to the original article, which was a fun read with a good eye for detail and reflection.

But this especially caught my eye (emphasis mine):

There’s a psychological term that’s used to explain why white people and black people aren’t friends: homophily. It means that people are likely to be friends with those who are similar to them. (There’s an aphorism about homophily: “Birds of a feather flock together.” One of the peculiar duties of social scientists is to prove the most obvious things, make them seem complicated, and then reconstitute them as simple. For examples, see the work of Malcolm Gladwell.) I would argue that the modern world is, in many quarters, dominated by increasingly extreme homophily. If you don’t want to, you’ll never have to talk to anyone whose jeans are different from yours. And there’s the trend toward so-called cultural cocooning, where you only have to listen to people who have the same opinion as you, be it on Fox or MSNBC or Lou Dobbs, depending on if your philosophy is galvanized around conservatism or liberalism or angry people with wet piano keys for teeth.

I’ve seen many a presentation or blog post that raves on how the Internet and especially social media will make us more informed readers. The reasoning goes that if you’re interested in something, say like the current economic crisis, you can use social media to read about it from a variety of different sources and from different viewpoints. Compared to the Average Joe who only gets his news from the evening news and the local newspaper, this social media reader and his pluralistic worldview is painted as almost an “undupable” force of nature that will save society as we know it from the manipulators (and killing traditional journalism along the way).

The truth is, as you might have guessed, somewhat different. Media technologies are always cultural and social systems; the possibility of some kind of behavior with a media technology doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily going to happen. For example, you already see worrisome examples of partisanship in the US where conservatives and liberals only listen to their favorite talking heads and get their news and the interpretation of the news from like-minded folk online. This makes mutual discourse with people outside of you’re “cocoon” increasingly difficult as the shared understandings are eroded.

Other than “the medium is the message”, I think Marshall McLuhan’s most important idea was how a new medium reveals more of the old ones it seeks to replace. McLuhan also taught us that new media channels almost never wipe out the previous ones, they just reorganize our media priorities and assign new roles to old media.

Marshall McLuhan

For example, cinema didn’t kill theater, it changed our perception of it and it became a more high class medium. We didn’t appreciate the richness in storytelling books provided until TV came along. Back in the day, TV pushed cinema into more of a spectacle medium (colors, 4:3 to widescreen, high quality sound effects etc.), and this progress is still continuing with 3D movies making a comeback. To put things in perspective, even the telegram (you know “I love you. stop. send food. stop”, THAT telegram) wasn’t discontinued until 2007, and even then over 20 000 telegrams were sent annually in the US. So the so-called “wipe-out scenarios” of new media just pummeling over old ones never really work.

This is something to keep in mind the next time you read a piece on how TV is “dead”. I think we’re in the process of seeing broadcast TV being redefined, as people start to realize what TV has to offer in contrast to downloading TV shows and watching them on your computer. For all the convenience that watching TV shows on demand has to offer, I think a lot of people are failing to see what they are giving up when they switch away from scheduled programming. I got a firsthand reminder of this last spring when I was watching the Eurovision song contest (yes, I know) with a bunch of friends. The atmosphere in the room was great and vibrant, people were engaging with the show and commenting every act with vigor. You can’t get that kind of atmosphere while watching it the next day on your laptop.

Somebody might argue that this is only true for live broadcasts or major TV events, like the season finale of a popular show or the Superbowl. I agree with this, but I also think that inevitably this might mean that all TV programming is either live or original programming (meaning very few reruns). One of the main arguments for the popularity of reality TV has been that it’s cheap to produce. This is certainly true, but I think it also comes back to the disposable nature of television programming nowadays where reruns aren’t profitable anymore and more current (preferably live) TV is favored. Also, as Grant notes, reality TV is often more on the pulse of culture, and this is its main appeal:

Reality programming is not just cheap TV, it is responsive TV. Surely, one of the most sensible way for the programming executive to get back in touch with contemporary culture is to turn the show offer to untrained actors who have no choice but to live on screen, in the process importing aspects of contemporary culture that would otherwise have to be bagged and tagged and brought kicking and screaming into the studio and prime time. Reality programming is contemporary culture on tap. It is by no means a “raw feed.” That is YouTube’s job. But it is fresher than anything many executives could hope to manage by their own efforts. In effect, reality programming is “stealing signals” from an ambient culture, helping TV remain in orbit.

The social aspects of TV aren’t limited to people watching in the same room. Even if a show isn’t important enough to “warrant” inviting your friends over, broadcasters are trying to make TV more social. NPR: Marketers Vie For TV Viewers Who Web Surf

Studies now show a significant number of TV viewers have computers perched on their laps while watching TV. They’re googling, searching and chatting online while watching football games and reality shows. Producers of TV shows and commercials are trying to capitalize on the trend.

We’re definitely in a transition period, it’ll be interesting to see to what TV will “regress into”, to quote McLuhan.

From PSFK

“Americans love knowing where their things are,” says Chris McGlothlin, chief information office at Domino’s. Folks constantly tell Domino’s how much they hate not knowing when — or if — their pizza will arrive. The Pizza Tracker, used by 75% of Domino’s online customers, is an attempt to solve that problem. While current technology also could track the whereabouts of drivers, Domino’s won’t track that for security reasons.

Besides connecting consumers to their pizzas, the tracker gives the first names of workers who make and deliver their order, says Russell Weiner, chief marketing officer. As a society, “We’re not just time-starved, we’re starved for connections to others.”

Emphasis mine. I think this is an interesting case of technology redefining old and existing consumption patterns. Does a service like this diminish the joy of hearing the doorbell ring and finally getting your pizza? How does it affect the socializing aspects that used to happen between the order and delivery? Are we really better off knowing exactly when our pizza arrives?

Bill Simmons is my favorite sports columnist, mainly for his funny writing style, but also for his feel for popular culture. He often mixes pop culture references into his sports columns or even writes entire columns on the subject. Here’s a recent quick interview with him, questions 3 & 5 were particularly illuminating: 5 Quick Questions with Bill Simmons

3. What’s the biggest story the media has missed this year?
The potential of Twitter. Old-school media doesn’t get Twitter at all. A lot of people still think it’s a fad and it’s totally not a fad. Cocaine was a fad. The Osbournes were a fad. Auto-asphyxiation was a fad…. well, unless you were David Carradine. If anything I think we are just scratching the surface of Twitter for better and worse: it started breaking stories last spring and over everything else, that’s why it won’t go away. Now reporters are posting scoops on Twitter before they send the finished stories into their employers. People are not seeing what is happening here. Facebook is a social network; Twitter is a media/marketing vehicle disguised as a social network.

5. Are you nervous or excited about the future of Journalism? Why?
I’m terrified. I think it’s going to hell in a hand basket. The emphasis is on quantity over quality and immediacy over accuracy; the newspapers have made it worse by trying to speed up their immediacy online over just kicking everyone’s asses with better writing and reporting. Newsmakers can control stories about themselves by selectively dispersing relevant information as well as who gets to talk to them (and for what reason). And too many writers are more interested in just saying what they have to say instead of crafting the way they are saying it. It’s a comedy of errors. I thought Season 5 of The Wire painted a bleak picture of where this is going, but even David Simon couldn’t have believed that it would get this bad this fast. I would say “nervous.”

That’s more or less the good and bad of Twitter, all in two paragraphs. Twitter’s ability of breaking and spreading news is considerable. However, I think this has had its drawbacks as well, putting and onus “on quantity over quality and immediacy over accuracy”, as Simmons so eloquently put it.

Some have already argued that Twitter will end up killing journalism, but I think this is a gross overstatement. The sad fact is that traditional news agencies have just been unable to carve up the right strategy against Twitter’s hypernovelty. The time of solely newspapers breaking stories is over; bloggers are now getting the kind of access to information traditionally reserved for the most prestigious news outlets. Grassroots journalism is doing a better job at breaking stories and faster, because they don’t have to work with the same constraints as, say, a New York Times (validity of source, brand image concerns, writing quality, legal issues). A New York Times can’t afford running many unconfirmed stories that end up blowing up in their faces. Tweeters (and blogs) by virtue of their sheer volume, on the other hand, can. The hits outweigh the misses.

Simmons hits it right on the money when he states that “newspapers have made it worse by trying to speed up their immediacy online over just kicking everyone’s asses with better writing and reporting.” The fact second opinion magazines like the Economist continue to see their subscriptions rise, not fall, is proof of this. Instead of focusing on WHAT has happened, it is time for traditional news outlets to return to reporting WHY something has happened.

Thanks to Tyler Cowen for the link.

For the uninitiated, here’s a short description of what is transmedia storytelling. Henry Jenkins and Transmedia Storytelling:

A transmedia story represents the integration of entertainment experiences across a range of different media platforms. A story like Heroes or Lost might spread from television into comics, the web, computer or alternate reality games, toys and other commodities, and so forth, picking up new consumers as it goes and allowing the most dedicated fans to drill deeper. The fans, in turn, may translate their interests in the franchise into concordances and wikipedia entries, fan fiction, vids, fan films, cosplay, game mods, and a range of other participatory practices that further extend the story world in new directions. Both the commercial and grassroots expansion of narrative universes contribute to a new mode of storytelling, one which is based on an encyclopedic expanse of information which gets put together differently by each individual consumer as well as processed collectively by social networks and online knowledge communities.

An apt metaphor that Jenkins has used is the art of “world building”, creating a storyline where readers can jump in and contribute at any point or from any medium. Transmedia storytelling has usually been about expanding one cultural franchise into new media channels, as stated above. However, what happens when you start expanding cultural franchises into other cultural franchises?

Inglourious Basterds and True Romance: Bonded by Family Blood

Quentin Tarantino has been building universes since day one. The characters of Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Death Proof talk about one another while eating at the same restaurants (like Big Kahuna Burger). Characters jump from one feature to another, and family relations might be mentioned in one script, but not seen on screen until another movie down the line. And at the Austin premiere of Inglourious Basterds, The Playlist learned that this film is, not surprisingly, related to True Romance, in a way that detail-oriented fans probably already suspect.

Fans of True Romance remember Saul Rubinek’s character, the producer Lee Donowitz. (Based by director Tony Scott, in a not too subtle manner, on Joel Silver.) In Austin, Tarantino said that Lee’s father is Eli Roth’s Inglourious Basterds character, Sgt. Donnie “The Bear Jew” Donowitz. Donnie is a violent, slightly unhinged individual, and some elements of that character were perhaps passed onto his son, who in True Romance is proud of his film Coming Home in a Body Bag.

I think this goes beyond just mashing up two cultural franchises in a one-off piece (like Aliens vs. Predators or Superman vs. Batman). This is more nuanced, more sophisticated and requires a higher level of literacy and dedication to Tarantino’s works. Tarantino’s works are currently confined only to the cinema medium, but I think this cross-referencing could be expanded to other media, easily. If transmedia storytelling is about creating “worlds”, as Jenkins states, then the next step might be about creating universes.

Sascha Baron Cohen’s new pseudo-documentary Brüno has been getting worse reviews than its predecessor, Borat. Most pundits feel that this is due to the film’s similarities, that the joke is sort of “played out” now. But having finally seen Brüno last night, I have a different opinion on why it was weaker (and it was) than the previous film.

Much of Borat’s interestingness stemmed from Borat talking with regular people, who often ended up showing their true colors in the process. Most of the interactions played out like a good qualitative interview: Borat was the researcher getting people to spill their guts, in their own words, with well-timed priming. Borat was the true outsider, wanting to learn about the American way of life, and people obliged. All Borat had to do was to nudge them into the right direction, and people would reveal their deep racist, homophobic or antisemite feelings. Often, it didn’t even require much.

Brüno, on the other hand, is almost a case example of bad anthropology. The spotlight is almost always on him, never on the people he’s interviewing or interacting with. Brüno is flamboyant. He’s irritating. He doesn’t get people to open up, he pushes them and pushes them until they lose their temper and reveal something about themselves. And most of the time, the results were predictable and uninteresting. People were genuinely uneasy with him, just waiting to get out of the situation. Most of the time, I ended up feeling sorry for Brüno’s “victims”, unlike in Borat. Only a few episodes felt free-flowing and enlightening (the talk show and the baby pictures), the rest was just shock humor.

I definitely think Cohen can make another film like this (more makeup and a new character and people won’t know who it is), but he has to tone it down and give the spotlight back to the people he’s interviewing.