youtube, copyrights, & music sucking life.

my brother had mentioned to me that YouTube was slowly taking down videos of copyrighted content, and it was a discussion topic over dinner a ways back as to how they were tracking the videos. well, now it's at an outright record high, as YouTube is no longer giving removal notifications to users. this time, the videos are just soundless.

---

this is indicative of a number of concerns. sure, legally, it makes sense. kinda. but only in this atmosphere where i feel like the RIAA is scarier than Big Brother. the music folks are on everybody's minds wanting to save a failing revenue stream, so they're cutting off other avenues of listening--like YouTube. i don't know why film isn't also up in arms, legally speaking--oh right, their revenue doesn't suck.

ANYWAY.

sure, mash-up culture will find another way to thrive, it always does. but i'm looking at you, YouTube: do you really want it to? the community there is great and could you really live without your favourite parodies and ridiculousness that circulates through the intertubes? it's not like the users are making anything off this, most of 'em, anyway.

SO. all YouTube is doing is alienating the user without directly contributing to the aching revenue stream of the music industry. it's a roundabout solution. that is, i don't see there being a huge correlation between increase in music sales and decrease of information available on YouTube. all you wind up with is more pissed off people.

RWW suggests: "It would make a lot more sense for the music industry to provide a blanket license to YouTube so that users could use copyrighted sounds tracks on their homemade videos, while the record labels (or the artists) could get a share of the advertising revenue."

---

i leave you with one of my brother's old AMVs. i asked which one he would prefer me to post, but he never txted me back, the little bastard ;) so i'm showing the one with most views. say goodbye to anime mashup videos forEVER! [full disclosure: i love my brother more than i love pretty much everything else ever.] [edit: he made me take down Third Eye Blind in favour of Rise Against.]

accountability with a DRM-free iTunes?

give me accountability or give me Amazon.

i speak as a very loyal iTunes user/purchaser. i rack up bills in the iTunes store like you would not believe. that 4-day mix tape i made over holiday? that cost me a pretty penny there, like $40, give or take, for one day of downloads. of DRM material. [if you aren't aware, DRM--digital rights management--is an encoding on music that limits distribution, including what players it can be played on].

Amazon has had DRM-free music for some time. but i am lazy. i use iTunes to play my music, so i use iTunes to buy my music. a committed .99 per song made it painlessly easy. what's one more song? it's only a buck, right? [to the point where paying 1.99 for Rock Band 2 song downloads seemed like 'too much,' which is illogical.] so DRM-free music on iTunes should be wicked awesome for me, queen of mix tapes, right?

...right.

and it is. but i'm very skeptical of this tiered music iTunes now offers. i want to see a PLAN. in order to give up a little rights management control, the labels want kick-back. so we get DRM-free, while per-song-pricing changes. Yanni can go for .69, while the new Beyonce can go for 1.29. it's said that more songs will be .99 and .69 than 1.29, but let's look at the theoretical math.

[i say theoretical cos it's not really math. i suck at math.]

obviously the combined amount of (nearly) ancient stuff that (nearly) no one listens to, combined with slightly dated material going for .99 would account for more catalogue space than the 1.29 songs. DUH. so you're not selling me on that promise. i am concerned. labels want kick-back because not everyone is as brave as Nettwerk.

so how long before any song i actually give a shit about is 1.29?

i get they want money. in a weird way, i MAY be persuaded out of laziness to spend 1.29 on a song because, as i said, iTunes just flat out 'does it for me.' but i want something that is going to say to me that in 6 months, or 3 months, or some short TIME ALLOTMENT that this 1.29 song is going to become .99. if any of you can find me this, i will be happy. i haven't yet.

i want to see a plan, a promise, something, that says we're not still getting it up the ass from the labels. you give me DRM-free, but pardon me if i look a gift horse in the mouth. pps. it's too much to ask, but i want to trade in my 100+ purchased songs for DRM-free ones. otherwise i just feel penalized/gypped for supporting before.

money, myspace, & music, oh my.

on another note, i've been playing around a fair amount with the new Myspace Music interface. and since Myspace is clearly trying to position--as it should--itself as a big player in music sharing&caring, i have had thoughts on the matter.

as it currently stands, users can add songs listed by bands' pages to their own playlists, which display on their profiles. previously, a user could only have 1 song on their profile page. now you can have whole playlists. that is the one major change given by Myspace Music. but i think they can push it farther.


as you can see above, "Download" is not available. this is often the case.

they're still entrusting me to purchase songs from iTunes, Amazon, or however else i might get them. this is problematic, especially as many of Myspace's bands aren't signed, or more underground--that's, you know, that thing they're trying to foster along with the bigger names. i should be able to buy my music from Myspace, especially from the lesser known bands that i can't get from iTunes etc.

also, it would be a big community pull if there were band-user incentives regarding music. like if a band has a new album coming out, i should be able to buy songs off that album at a discounted price providing i put those songs on my profile page for X amount of days (say, 7). that way, you get advertising, i get discounted music. things like that.

you make me wanna... LaLa.com?

it's time for 3 music posts. first on the menu: muxtape meets iTunes for your online music needs. if you haven't already heard about this new it-toy, you should look into it. it hasn't converted me from iTunes yet, but it has me poking around and it's definitely worth the curiosity invested.

the short of it:
6 million tracks (+counting). you can listen to any song once for free; no "thirty second preview." currently there are no ads and no subscription fees. just sign up and listen. if you want to listen again, you pay based on what you're licensing for... web only is 10 cents, mp3 download is 79--cheaper than iTunes. if you already own a song, they 'move' it to your purchased tracks for free.

oh and yeah, there's that social aspect where you can add friends, and a last.fm style graphic aspect where i know what kind of style of music a person is into on a sliding scale. it also has this "CD trading" feature you can do, but i don't know what that is yet. and for what it's worth, so far they seem to have most of the stuff i've looked for, including my more esoteric choices. okay, they didn't have Emily's Sassy Lime, but at least they knew the band existed.

and so forth...
so this is being hailed as something of a breakthrough in music distribution. i mean, it's cheaper, and that's a plus, but since it's newer, it's not as integrated. i will need more time before i surrender the awesome that is iTunes. it does seem like a step forward from last.fm and muxtape, merging the social with the purchasing directly, as well as offering a space for all of it to be held purely online if one should so desire. this is a plus for organizational types and i'm sure a few other 'types' as well; the lack of a subscription fee with an iTunes-like purchase system is just an added bonus.

heartbreaking: ethics & advertising

secretly, it's not a secret. i would give one of my toes to have lunch with Dave Trott if only in the hopes of sucking up some of his awesomeness through a straw and osmosis. i love his insights; i think his perspective on creative is empathetic and inspiring; i think that his circular logic and penchant to relate unrelated things marks thought processes i find enviable and intriguing.

but i did read his blog--as i do every day--and last week i read something that broke my heart a little. often times Dave will write something that will make me think; sometimes i will outright agree, sometimes it takes me a minute to see it, and i like that. but this i just couldn't come around to. and i'd let it be my own seething sadness until David Griner picked it up on AdFreak earlier today.

maybe it has something to do with how jaded i'm feeling lately. how everything can seem corrupt from the top down. but that's just it: from the top down. i want to believe that advertising doesn't have to be unethical and corrupt. that's one of the reasons i picked the shop where i'm at now. i want to believe that idealist kids are a good thing if only because it provides a steady stream of reality check; of honesty and integrity before the biz taints it and spits us out funny colours.

i don't want to believe that stealing is okay. because i don't think it is. being inspired by, and stealing, are two different things. most people can tell the difference, i would hope. but to outright take something just to get your first job? i know the first one's hard--and probably the 15 after it, too--but to be that unethical from the get-go surprised me, especially from a man whose creative thought i so intensely admire. it made me confused to find that such creativity couldn't find its own merit and outlet.

clearly his methods got him in the door, and his own talent carried him the rest of the way, to the respectable and successful place he is now. but i give kudos to his prior boss for flipping out. because accepting it would have set one more unethical precedent. i am hoping this emerging trend for transparency will create bosses and hirers who are looking for that integrity. not just a nice book. but then again, i am that kid.

"So you choose what works for you.
Either the means justifies the end.
Or the end justifies the means."

it's not about endings. it's not about Machiavellian meets Darwinian tactics.
it's about looking at my own face in the morning. i'm not saying he shouldn't be able to. i'm saying i couldn't. and that's just me.
he's the larger than life, epic adman of awesome. i'm just a girl in advertising.

[in other news: i'm also heartbroken because VICE sent me an email today to RSVP to an event TWO DAYS from now. if i'd had more notice, i could have gone. instead, i am missing going to a live taping of my hero, Kathleen Hanna. i am so depressed.]

is your brand a moth or a butterfly?

i was reading Faris' blog, as i usually do, when i came across his post regarding The Moth, a slam-style storytelling circle in NY and LA. apart from the fact that it's bloody awesome (and that i will probably go to the Nuyorican showing), it got me thinking about moths and butterflies--a motif that has been following me for months now.

"the founders felt was analogous to:
the characters in their best stories would often find themselves drawn to some bright light—of adventure, ambition, knowledge—but then find themselves burned or trapped, leaving them with some essential conflict to face before the story could reach its conclusion."

the moth represents conflict with the world. it is the self which both loves and yearns. like the butterfly, it too forms a cocoon and transforms itself, but that is not what it has come to symbolize. the moth is about the tension of reconciliation; the struggle for understanding with the exterior world and our place in it.

the butterfly represents conflict with oneself. the symbolic butterfly is about the personal journey, the thing one must undergo in order to develop into our full potential. it is an interior search. the butterfly becomes a symbol of freedom and beauty once the insect emerges. the story ends there.

the one, emphasis on the interactive journey; the other, emphasis on the personal journey. i identify a lot with moths in that regard, but i also came to think about it in terms of creative, and in terms of advertising. for a long time, advertising has been the butterfly. it has been about the personal, transformative journey of the brand. it is this point of view which expects others to love simply out of the respect and beauty of this journey.

this brand has not yet tried to find its place in the world. it has not reconciled itself to interaction, to the space outside of its own head. some advertising is handling brands like moths, are pursuing that tension between self and other, and are fostering those spaces. they are telling the stories not about themselves, but about connections.

in this way, moth branding is more accessible. it asks me to identify with our common spaces, rather than identify with your personal journey. i am not going to like you because you are a heap big 60 year old auto company that has survived through the years and shown your mettle; i will identify with you on my own terms, the ones that show the light of you and i.

but, like the moth, there will be tension. we are experiencing this now, with words like monetization, cashification, viral, social, what have you. we are trying to find our way through this jungle. advertising is romancing the light. only some will get burned. some will have never tried at all.

[photo shown left: Blue's Creative Outlet, specializing in funky moth & butterfly jewelry]

thin women effect: hating self, loving brands.

according to a study reported on by AdAge, thin women in advertising make women feel poorly about themselves, but good about the brand. viewers will eat less or choose low-calorie options after seeing a thin model, feeling inadequate, but will like whatever product better; yet, when faced with a "normal" sized woman, women are less inclined to purchase the advertised product, but won't monitor their eating. the study was comprised of "a sample of 194 college students aged 18-24."

i feel the need to address this, especially because it's getting attention as a reason for marketers to return to skinny models: they sell product better.

i don't think this is the case. i think for a long time now, women have been living in 'the valley.' no, not like valley girls. i mean this trench from which we try to crawl out of. on one side, expectations and traditions (and don't you dare get me started in a debate by saying 'but they aren't there any more'--bullshit); on the other side, a long way up and out, paved with dogmas and philosophies difficult to navigate, aiming to feel alright in this world and in our bodies.

this shift is still changing.
the valley is getting smaller, but it will take time. this movement is helping more than hurting, if marketers/brands can suck it up a while longer. only in the past decade (being generous) have girls been able to see 'real women' in the media around them. wait for these girls to grow up. then tell me about their confidence, their eating habits, their response to thin models. if the same results hold in 20 years, then i'd consent to maybe there being something in it.

because right now, the valley effect is such that women see skinny women in skinny jeans (for example). that's a goal and aspiration that they were brought up (in many cases) to fulfill, understanding that this is what our Western society views as desirable. they want to be the skinny woman so they can buy the skinny jeans. thus, they get down on themselves, eat less, and do like the brand more--it's a status symbol, a version of self-growth and attainment/contentment.

that is removed for current 18-24 year olds, many of whom grew up on Britney Spears and Spice Girls, when they are shown images like themselves. there is no push to better oneself, no goal to reach, no status attached to something they can readily buy. to put it in perspective: the iPhone. if it was cheap and easy to get, tech geeks wouldn't be all over that shit. the iPhone are the skinny jeans of today's market gurus.

but that desire for the skinny jean will dissipate when it is no longer a status symbol. if the regular jeans are as desirable as the size 00s. to extend the metaphor, when it becomes more about the cut and style of the jeans, rather than the size. this is the shift. don't cut it off from happening. the study also found that seeing regular women was self-affirming, though brand-denying. but i should know better than to ask the industry to consider the end user over the almighty dollar.

[side note.
i'm not even getting into the fact that 194 students is a shitty sample size to be parading this data around on.]

Yeas & Nays: IV

found here, re: greyhound stabbing here
Riot saith: NAY!
okay, so, i'm sure for all humourous purposes, this advertisement has surfaced. i would imagine, and from the look of it assume, that the ad came out before the stabbing. (i really, really hope so.) it's almost in bad taste to show it, if only because it makes me make that groaning noise. for those of you who don't know, a sleeping person on a Canadian Greyhound was stabbed in the throat and decapitated with a hunting knife on a bus full of people. what's Greyhound doing about it? not enough, Jaffe says, and i have to agree. on another note, the advertisement is pretty shitty, regardless of timeliness. i haven't heard of "car rage" either, and both buses and cars (and trucks and hummers) all use roads. 'nuff said.

TIGS, re: gorillas, chimps, ads, primates
Riot saith: YEA!
as if you didn't already know, Faris is wicked awesome. his post, linked above, catalogues something we all learned in 3rd grade and forgot: "they may not remember what you say, but they will always remember how you made them feel." that was supposed to teach us to be nice to one another. and even if advertising isn't exactly about being nice, it is about emotional response. i would like to see an effective ad that appeals not at all to any emotions--in an unironic way. the more and more i think about advertising, the more and more i come to realize that the youth injection is important. folks have got to stop thinking like marketers and remember that they're people, and relearn those things that made them people in the first place.

doesitsellstuff, re: social media
Riot saith: YEA!
i love stumbling across blogs that make me want to redo my entire blogroll (which i will be getting around to doing, there are some much needed additions). this is one such blog. Scott Sigler chronicles social media campaigns and their effectiveness in really interesting ways; the ways that make you actually want to spend time reading it all. and it is really, really interesting. i forget how i stumbled across it but i'm very glad that i did. his blog's subhead reads: "A look at case studies of companies using Social Media to, well, sell stuff. Forget theory - does it add to a company's bottom line, or is it all just a waste of money?" if you're into social and strategic planning, check him out.

talk about not much to work with.

you do the best with what you've got.

it's a phrase you hear a lot, but is hard to really wrap your head around--really get at the heart of what that means. yesterday, when i was roaming various towns on Long Island, i found a place that was inspiring: Down the Rabbit Hole Wine Boutique. they were doing exactly that.

when i first walked past the storefront, that was what happened: i walked past it. but something made me pause. it could be the "Human Tasting" sign in the front with an arrow inside, or it could have been the word "wine." i'll leave the discerning to you. i walked in; the place was not 5 feet wide. it narrowed the farther in you went. it was, literally, a hole in the wall.

as prime property--main street in Sayville--it was too good to pass up, especially right next to the renowned Sayville Chocolatier (which was why i was there in the first place). but how to make it work? the proprietors ran with what they had, literally. keeping the concept of a hole in the wall that narrows as you go, the wine shoppe took on an Alice in Wonderland theme.

"Drink Me" pointed to the daily wine tasting on the counter. the right hand wall shelved all the wines, including Guilty and Innocent (the only place on the island to sell those, by the way!), grouped by prevailing flavour: Fruity [white rabbit], Flowery [madhatter], Earthy [caterpillar], Spicy [queen of hearts], and Sparkling [cheshire cat] with paintings above each section of the respective character.

there's more fun to be had there, so if you're ever in Sayville, check it out. in the meanwhile, take a lesson: sometimes working with what little you've got could be the best thing to set you apart.

ok, for real iPhone? this isn't high school.

it isn't even elementary school.

at least i can relate to the iPhone insanity.
way back when, when the earth was cooling and i was a wee 5th grader, cell phones were on the periphery of our existence. they were something nebulous, though we were conscious of them. more importantly, someone picked up on that.

there were these walkie-talkies in ridiculously fun colours. you could "dial" your friends. they were all the rage. ALL. THE. RAGE. that was what we subjected our parents to. miles of lines outside Toys R Us. only to find they were sold out. but we had to. had to have them! it would have been the end of my little 5th grader life.

i was so excited the day i finally got my teal walkie talkie set.
except then they were banned from school the very. next. day. [sigh]

lesson here kids? yes, Apple is badass. yes, the iPhone is better than the previous iPhone. yes, it's shiny. but it will still be there tomorrow [and at least they won't be banned from work! haha]. go ahead, be the Pinnacle Of Cool and All that is Shiny Status Symbol for 5 minutes in repayment for the hours spent on line.

but here's a secret: i won't think you're any less tech savvy because you got it on Monday. in fact, since AT&T is losing stock so quickly, you'll probably wind up with it on Monday anyway. just doing up the hype doesn't do it for me [but here are some fun things that might].

i think what a lot of this has to do with is people like things to get excited over. we don't have enough space for surprise, intrigue, and excitement in our day to day lives as we did when we were children. some joke about technology being "our new toys"--but i think it's true. for some folks, this was Black Friday. the day when all the Christmas lines are ridiculous and half the fun is the insanity. but just like Black Friday... i'm staying home.

walmart's new transparency: hiding more from you.

well, that's just so special. right on the tail of the TSC Is Less Than Direct logo, and the problematic Missing M mantra of Quiznos, comes the 'refreshing' logo of Walmart (note, it's now one word; we're taking the human element out, he is dead after all...).

people. srsly. learn your symbols.
just like ">" can be read as "less than," the "*," or asterisk, often denotes fine print. and i'm sure we all know the incredible amount of fine print that Wal-Mart (oh, i'm sorry, Walmart) can accrue. just as perhaps the "less than direct" was inadvertent honesty, so possibly is the asterisk. i can't think of a better symbol to embody all the cover-ups and discontinuity of the worldwide empire.

WALMART*
* unlivable wages
* shitty benefits packages
* destruction of open space
* non-environmental interests
* monopolistic regime
* culture death
* lack of sustainability
* faux-interest in change

...i could go on. but i'll let you. so, in short, i think the new facelift is entirely appropriate. it symbolizes everything Wal-Mart has become: a faceless, humanless entity only interested in giving the illusion of change while hiding as much fine print as possible. yeah, sounds about right, logo designers.

Riot's day in brands. & analysis thereof.

[the brand montage a la dear jane][see larger logos]

rather than do a TYPICAL day in the life of Riot brands, i decided to do an EXACT day in the life. and analyze what all that means to me. i realized in the doing that it wasn't exactly what i thought it would be, nor was it exactly representative. this is MAY 23 08. thoughts below. anything marked with an asterisk didn't have a Google-able logo.

THE BREAKDOWN: AM WAKEUP
08:15: verizon • LG
08:18: DELL • Adobe Photoshop • IE
08:30: Crest • Oral-B • Dove • Gilette • Axe • Tom Ford
08:33: lolo* • rave* • Saucony • TWLOHA • Style&Co
08:40: FOX • Sephora • Neutrogena • CoverGirl • Benefit • Urban Decay • MAC
08:50: Nike • Nissan Maxima • Fueled by Ramen

THE ARRIVAL: AM WORK
09:00: Apple • N.Design Studio • Intellimerge • Firefox • Entourage • iChat
09:04: Cafe Du Monde • Stop&Shop Tea • Domino Sugar
09:11: Apple • Firefox • Google • WordPress • Blogger • Twitter
10:05: Firefox • Twitter • Amazon • TextEdit • Verizon • LG
11:35: iTunes • TextEdit • Firefox • Twitter

LUNCH TIME+: AFTERNOON DAZE
01:28: Verizon • LG • Altamira* • Dickies • MasterCard • HSBC
01:50: Gino's* • Gatorade • Chase • HSBC • Twitter
02:11: TextEdit • Quark • iChat

FREEDOM: POST-WORK WIND DOWN
05:00: Verizon • LG • Nissan Maxima
05:14: DELL • IE • MSN • Chatroom*
06:45: Tina's II*
08:32: Verizon • LG
08:45: DELL • IE • MSN • Chatroom*
10:06: Verizon • LG
10:12: DELL • IE • MSN

GET THE FLOCK OUT OF HERE
11:16: Hyundai • Tom Ford • Nike • Lily Flanagan's • Blue Moon
11:43: Hyundai • Delicious • Subculture • Sambuca • More Sambuca
12:20: Black Haus • Peach Schnapps* • Southern Comfort • Rose's Lime
02:47: Hyundai
03:10: DELL • IE
03:20: Ford Taurus • Taco Bell • Ford Taurus • Crest • Oral-B

BEDTIME! Somewhere around 4AMish.

now, here are the interesting things when i consider a literal day in brands. as in what i actually used and did not use. this gets a little personal, but i promise there are deductions.

1 -- THE UN-BRANDS and their sneaky, sneaky ways: that particular day, i had a very, very casual friday. i was supposed to head onto the LIRR directly from work to see my very ill best friend in New Hyde Park, so i was in jeans, a tank, and kicks. not necessarily my daily work attire. not to mention, i couldn't have told you what bra brand and undies i was wearing that day--or socks. even though i'm usually a Vikki's Secret girl, and wear Journeys socks, i know i wasn't doing that. not to mention, i have no idea what brand of toilet paper my agency uses, nor have i any idea their faucet's brand, etc. as much as we are branded, there are still small simple places. i don't look down and see "Cottonell" imprinted on my toilet paper.

2 -- DEVIATIONS & SACRIFICE, or, Change of Plans: the best laid plans of mice and men. what happens when your brands aren't there for you? so i had to do laundry. so i didn't have Vikki's undies or Journeys socks. i had some nameless undergarments and borrowed my mom's socks. my agency was out of Tazo Earl Grey and PNGTips tea (the HORROR) so i had to drink Stop&Shop (sacrilege). i couldn't make it to my HSBC bank, so i had to use Chase, which is a bastard for charging $3 to take out my own cash and $1.50 to transfer funds. i don't like DELL or IE, but that's my laptop right now while i'm saving for a Mac(Black)book. i wear my Reverie Duel hoodie every day--except that one, because i couldn't find it. so my choices were reflective of my day, not my normal brand usage, and the psychology of pressure.

3 -- THE LIES ABOUT daily brand use: just because i use you daily, doesn't mean i'm loyal to you, or ever really like you. ie: DELL, case in point. Dove, too, whom i hate but it was there in the house. also, i only own 1 Dickies item (my wallet) and while i see the logo every day, it does nothing for me. likewise with Nike (my bag is my only Nike purchase) and FOX (my makeup bag--that's all). some things are like breathing, and i don't have to think about them--like my N.Design desktop at work. i use it, but i don't change it or interact with it, though i like the art. unlike, say, my ugly DELL's desktop, which i made using Audrey Kitching photos. yes, Lily Flanagan's is a usual haunt for me--but usually only on thursdays; had i gone to New Hyde Park, i never would have been there. to boot, all 3 cars mean nothing to me--they belong to (in order) my mom, my other best friend, and my partner.

4 -- ON TO PROM QUEENS & star quarterbacks: then, on to what really matters. what brands am i loyal to that i do actually use every day? what appears here that is typical of me, that i do think of as my personal "prom queen" brands? my alcohols, of course. i'm very picky with that. so Blue Moon, Sambuca, swedish fish shots, and Soco Lime are all pretty representative. add in Magic Hat #9, Goldschlager, Patron, Jose Cuervo, Ketel, and Reyka, and that's the short list of things i'll drink without spitting on you. my get-ready gear--Axe deodorant, Tom Ford Black Orchid perfume, my makeup, my daily tea. my style: never leave without at least a To Write Love On Her Arms button; Delicious shoes are club footwear of choice (Pleaser, too). my work habits--i need Apple, Adobe, iTunes, iChat, Twitter, Blogger, Firefox, Amazon, TextEdit. the real prom queens aren't necessarily hip; just what i can't live without.

the value isn't in the daily use, but instead in what i'd miss sacrificing. i wouldn't miss my Oral-b toothbrush, and i wouldn't cry if i had to switch from Crest. if i had to trade my Post-Its for Staples brand, that's okay by me. but don't you take my personal prom queens. don't you take Tazo Earl Grey from me; you'll be getting a fight. and don't you DARE take away my cell phone. its batteries died early yesterday. i was without it for 20 minutes. i cried a little--inside.

save me from this world:

If you like, you may live in a computer created world all day and all night. You will be able to try out a Virtual life with a Virtual lover. You can go into your Virtual house and do Virtual housework, add a baby or two, even find out if you’d rather be gay. Or single. Or straight. Why hesitate when you could simulate.
And sex? Certainly. Teledildonics is the word.
(Jeanette Winterson, Written on the Body, p. 97)

is there a person in the house?

NO. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. AND... NO?

"In other words, if everything else in a consumer's life is connected through digital, shopping should be, too."

if i want to be alone and not interact with people when i shop, I SHOP ONLINE.
i don't need to get on a car, in a subway, on a train, to go visit a store without people. granted, it's "less employees," not "no employees," but what's the difference? those people who still are employed will find better ways to "use the time" they're being paid for than to perform customer service, which requires patience, effort, and understanding. why do that when a computer can do it for you? besides, it's not like we need more jobs available anyway...

can i keep saying NO any more?

how many times do you call a phone of a company now and get into an endless automated loop about some stupid thing you never wanted to tell them just because you can't get a HUMAN on the phone? a human who could have answered your question in 2.5 seconds? i don't want to stare at a screen to discern my purchasing protocol. if i'm not doing it online i a) want a personal opinion about the product or b) i procrastinated and need said item NOW, at which point i'm not asking any questions anyway: my mind is made up. removing employed people from stores is a surefire way to lose traffic to said store. they could just buy online.

we are already disconnected. we are seeking connections via pixels. welcome to the age of mass communication. mass disillusionment. mass isolation. and you're just making it worse rather than fostering those connections. if anything, this technology should be a tool used by employees to help customers. like the computers in Borders or Wawa or your local tech-savvy deli. but for the love of interaction and humanity, don't lose the people. sometimes i leave the house just to see another face.

beware the stone gods.

proof that dove really does suck at life.

as if you needed more evidence, here's why Dove is still guilty of failure. now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Yeas & Nays: II

the site, adrants review, re: whore diamonds.
Riot saith: NAY!
this is revolting on so very many levels--and probably none of the ones you're thinking of, either. Two cents from Sam Elhag, head of strategy for Drunk University Network: "We don't feel that only politicians and Emperors Club members should have an exclusive on rating today's generation of working girls. This opens up the process to the masses. Who knows, a 'five diamond' girl to a Spitzer may only be a 'three diamond' to the rest of the world." ...is the rest of the world buying?? i don't care what YOU think about this woman. YOU are (likely) not going to employ her. this is NOT a democracy; it's a business. you shouldn't be able to vote on how hot a "whore" is unless you're spending money on her or one of her colleagues. you could be hurting her sales simply because a bunch of numb nuts decided they don't like her nose, when she was making fine sales before--and now someone with money won't buy her for fear of what a hundred anonymous internet geeks will think of them for it. this is not Hot-or-Not. these aren't candids, this isn't Girls Gone Wild (don't get me started there). she is not your girlfriend, even if you paid her to be. if this is what it says it is, this is about employment, not your latest social network where you get to degrade women and their choices or situations. shame on you. go watch porn. at least you pay for that. on a side note, do these women get to opt-in to be on the site? that's also relevant. if they don't get a choice, it's worse. if they do, perhaps it helps the sales of lesser-known women? i am trying to see how this could be empowering, and i just don't.

cnet, eff, re: Universal.
Riot saith: YEA!
you go, EFF. i just don't understand how out of hand the record labels can get over this sort of stuff. Lenz was not selling her YouTube video. she didn't even show the full song. are we as humans supposed to never interact with the products you convince us to buy? she can own a Prince CD but she can't video her kid dancing to it and share it with her family and friends, who might also find the child somewhat adorable when dancing to Prince? it's not like Lenz is making DVD copies and selling them on eBay under the title 'Beborn Baby Prince' or something. ye gods. at least it's back on YouTube, the whiny brats. if record labels want to win people back, making us pissed off at you isn't the way to do it.

the site, adage review, re: Heineken
Riot saith: NAY!
wow. talk about shitty. that song is really, really annoying. the syncing of the images doesn't flow with the music, either. the cuts feel off and forced. some of it is really nonsensical. a ballerina serving beer to a sauna full of old guys? right. some of these situations i buy, and some i don't, at all. i don't feel united, or even happy. i feel like the spot instead grated on my nerves and took away my last interest in Heineken (which wasn't that great to begin with, so you didn't sell me on it). i don't think the heart of the issue is "get drunk" versus "pay it forward"--i just think the ad fails to relate to anyone currently. a better idea would have been to take where sharing beer is relevant: different party scenes (bachelor's, reunions, birthdays, etc) and show buying a round and celebrating. that's what we do, right? eat, drink, and be merry? bring in some more merry and less kumbaya.

oh zappos.com, the heat is on.

not really, i mean, i'm one person.

but i buy a LOT of shoes.
moreover, i spend a lot of money on buying shoes (cheaply).
once, when i was so in love with a pair of shoes, i paid double the price of the amount of the shoe just for shipping--only to repeat the experience when the size received was too big. that wound up being around a two hundred dollar experience, i believe.

so, in short, you want my business.
(you already have my mother's, heh.)

you only carry one brand that i'm a diehard fan of. moreover, you only carry 60 styles, many of which are outdated. but, regardless, i'm a shoe fanatic, and so i found a pair i liked that i didn't already own. only to discover that they are being sold for $56.

now, i realize that your shipping is free--and that is why i had tried hard to find something to purchase. i support that. i also support @zappos and the awesome work Tony is doing via twitter (i will win one of those contests! mark me.)

but why would i buy these shoes from zappos.com when i can buy them usually for around $30 +S&H, which (unless i'm overnighting) does not calculate to $56. i understand i may be paying for the service of indefinite returns until i get my size at no additional cost... but if i know my size and i'm familiar with the brand i'm buying, this does nothing for me. not to mention, you don't even carry delicious.

why are you spreading out to other reaches in accessories and gadgets for the zappos brand before finishing off being the shoe hub that you are?

by request! a rant on dove.

the post. the culprit: dove. the question: relevancy. the verdict: fail.

but you knew that already.
the question is truly, Why exactly does Dove fail at life?

it's not that it was a flawed campaign concept, as some believe.
i think that a campaign for real beauty, and expanding definitions of beauty, is admirable, useful, and, moreover, achievable through marketing if done well. MultiCultClassics recaps and quotes Adbusters, "In this case the message is right on—it’s time to end the propagation of unrealistic ideals. But the intention—to somehow bolster women’s self-esteem while selling them firming lotion—is the problem."

i am not sure this is entirely true.
all women--and i'd argue all humans--want to feel beautiful.
beautiful means confident, which in turn leads to desirability and acceptance, which leads to the ultimate goal of communication and connection.

widening the standards to include more people into that circle of beauty is important to raise confidence in a culture which places so much emphasis on appearance. rather than change the body to fit the mold, shift the mold. that much we can agree our culture is due for.

there are a number of ways people are doing this.
for a long time, i supported--though no, i didn't model for ;)--Suicide Girls for their political stance in their own alternative industry. i then stopped supporting them because of their legal practices, but that's beside the point right now.

if Dove wanted to expand definitions of beauty and sell body lotion, i think it's possible. if you want to tell me that my body type and my facial structure fits into a new definition of beauty--and you make me believe it--i may just support you enough to buy that lotion that consequently makes my skin silky smooth (i actually do purchase one Dove product, namely this). point being? sell me on the new beauty concept, if that's what the campaign is about, and you'll sell me on the product because you'll be something i believe in.

that means depict in your ads: large girls, multiethnic girls, tattooed and pierced girls, nerdfabulous girls, feminine girls, girls with hard bodies, girls with legs for days, girls with big hips, girls with broad shoulders, girls with 'masculine' faces, girls like flowers, girls like linebackers--oh wait, i mean, ALL KINDS OF GIRLS. hey, all of them may buy lotion. especially if they play rugby. ;)

do not show me, as you are, these girls who still look like models and who don't resemble anyone i've ever met before in my life. give me girls i want to take a second look at. give me online profiles for my favourite dove girls. let me get to know her style, her hardships, and her personal beauty.

bottom line is you can't campaign for real beauty unless you actually embrace it.
through embracing it, i do think there is product support and monetization.
but if your concept and campaign don't match up--as they currently don't--that's what's causing the distrust.

because ultimately, Dove is more concerned with pushing product than pushing the importance of pluralizing beauty--and that's the failure.

'the stone gods' and why it matters.

i am that lit geek.

my 100th tweet [don't ask, i don't really care the number] was about Jeanette Winterson's The Stone Gods. i didn't even know. woo! personal landmark. i'm such a winterson dork.

anyway, the tweet was:
"strange question: have any of you read The Stone Gods by Jeanette Winterson?"

why is this fiction book important? everyone's twittering about ad:tech, and @alisamleo was talking about:
adtech: "are people getting freaked out" by individualized, behavioral targeting?
>> 39 minutes ago from web
adtech: well....depends on the age group. younger users don't care, its the internet economy...
>> 38 minutes ago from web

which got me thinking about how i'm still a little weirded out by it. i don't know if it's generational (am i not considered a young user anymore? i'm only 22) or just that i'm aware of what's going on; either way, i am still cautious about individualized targeting--even as i advocate it (see previous posts about choosing what our txt ads should be in order to keep relevance high).

The Stone Gods is similar in concept to other futuristic books. if you've read Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, The Stone Gods is pretty much the direct inverse combined with Brave New World. among other themes, The Stone Gods addresses characters in a world that is hyper-marketed, hyper-targeted, and hyper-relevant. the computers know what you want before you do, right down to what you should wear (i'm sure Kenny Cole would love that -insert eyeroll here-). everything was so individualized that everyone began to be similar anyway, but it was what was desired regardless.

question posed: effective, yes. useful, perhaps.
but is this the kind of world you personally would want to live in?

no judgments here. i'm just honestly curious if you believe it would be beneficial, easier, and less stressful, or if it would "freak you out" about privacy etc.

stop txting me pls. (!)

subtitle: i have an adcrush on danah boyd.

if you don't know about her yet, what's wrong with you? love her or hate her but you need to know. she's doing ethnographies that are incredibly relevant to the shifts of emphasis in the ad biz. so listen up. i know some of you are, and i love you for it. [brief rundown? Agency Spy rocks my socks.]

anyway. long story short? stop texting me.
i know that email won't remain the best way to get in touch with my generation in the future, but that doesn't mean you need to turn to text messaging. as we all know, my generation is increasingly more public with our information on the internet, regardless of how we craft ourselves. key words? on the internet.

if your spamails aren't working out for you, text messaging surely won't. i would be more annoyed receiving texts (and being charged for them by my service provider!) that are unwanted than emails. not to mention, you can't opt-out of text spam like you can unsub from emails. that results in me getting cranky with my carrier.

cell phones? personal and business. spam has taken over email. if it takes over text messaging, that will a) be less productive than intended because of the unwanted setting and b) will only decrease in effectiveness.

! but i'm not all bitch and no suggestions here, folks.
you want to utilize text message spam so badly? how about you do this crazy thing called... respect. i know that means very little on the 'net these days, but it's something that might be considered over phrases like friendly stalking and privacy invasion.

why don't you offer people the ability to subscribe to text messaging for products they like? some commercials advertise this ability. because that changes the game. that means i am interested in what you're trying to sell me. you want me to subscribe to a DriveThru Records (or any other label for that matter) text messaging feed in order to tell me what concerts are now up and when tickets go on sale? GO FOR IT, i'm in.

it's all about relevance, which is what the lovely danah boyd and others keep trying to express. you can't just throw up an ad into a Facebook setting and expect people to suddenly love you and be loyal to your brand. engage with them. become relevant. i know the movement is toward mobile, but can't you be respectful about it?

a la miss danah:
"I think that most brands make mistakes because they don’t understand the social dynamics. Think of MySpace/Facebook as a public hangout space. When is it socially acceptable to go up to a group of friends hanging out at a pub or having a picnic in the park? If you treat it that way, the boundaries are much more logical. If you have something relevant to add to the conversation, you might be asked to pull up a seat/join the mat. If not, you will be seen as sketchy and annoying. You are always welcome in the backdrop, but don’t expect to be included just because you’re there. And be careful.. there’s a fine line between being an active participant on an SNS and being seen as a spammer. You’re often better off being a legitimate participant (a.k.a. buying ads) than trying to coldcall folks."

take home message: if i WANT your spam, i'll ASK FOR IT.