transparency in movies, blackberry

wouldn't it be cool if there were transparency in movie posters? ok, so you'd never know what it was about, what actors were in it, what genre it is, or if you could take your little brother to it--but can you tell what you were being subliminally sold through product placement? YOU BETCHA! [haha] and let's be honest, product placement is what really matters otherwise everything would still be low-budget.

apparently, Ocean's 11 may be responsible for my purchasing habits or brand emotions regarding: Apple, Dr. Pepper, HBO, Ketel One, and Tropicana. see how these movies may have influenced you; check out the awesome posters spotlighting Ocean's 11, Dark Knight, Iron Man, the Matrix trilogy, Kill Bill 1, and The Bourne Ultimatum here.

on another note somewhat, i think the hype created by the new Blackberry Storm commercials is pretty sweet. and i don't even like Blackberry. but you know what would be sweeter? Blackberry owning up to its "crackberry" name and doing a series of spots a la Trainspotting. hell yeah. see the infamous baby crawling on the ceiling withdrawal scene here, youtoubed for your pleasure.

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.]

cool toy du jour: Zoolit

you may be saying to yourself, with all this social media, where ever will i keep it? and you'd be right! how many times have we laboured over long lost profiles, things we no longer keep track of, shiny toys that got dusty (coughcough: Friendster, Buzznet, Mashable, PROpenMic, Plurk, and identi.ca are just some of the profiles i joined to ignore). how do you find the active ones and share those all in one easy place?

the answer: ZOOLIT.
incredibly simple. incredibly easy.

you want to know where i live on the internet? http://zoolit.com/thegirlriot and look no further. as i recall shit i actually use, i put it up there. don't know whether to judge me by a defunct Threadless account or by my Etsy feedback? wonder no more! every where i am ACTUALLY is there. how about you? send me your Zoolit stalkerbook in the comments. cheers!

revolution, inc. :: how i do.

i've been getting a number of questions lately from about a dozen folks prying into "the girl Riot" so i figure it's time for another edition of Revolution, Inc. but hey--there hasn't been one in four months. i know, i know. at least i spare you talking about my actual life (short of music and costuming, haha).

today i was highlighted, along with the fabulous Alan Wolk, by David over at The Social Path. you can read that there, which he properly capitalized and punctuated for me, however out of line with my personal branding that may be ;) sacrifices, sacrifices. David has been discussing anonymity avidly with his commenters in the for/against debate.

to round that out, i wanted to share with you, and elaborate, just why i do what it is that i do here on this blog. some of you have met me in person and had that moment where you said, 'so, what's your real name?' and i just gave a crazy half-smile and launched into this whole thing. so, now you know:
---

we are constantly asking our brands to be more like "people." brands we can relate to, want to have beers with, brand we could see in the White House (don't laugh). it's kind of like "the consumer isn't a moron--she's your wife" (Ogilvy). how can we make recommendations and bandy words around if we don't understand them personally? see also.

we are having arguments over what "authentic" means and whether something can "be it." i wanted to get at the heart of that in a meta sort of way, to understand more about the unwritten policies being developed like "authenticity" and "transparency," etc. because of that, i wanted to come at this like an art. at heart, i'm an art kid who became a copywriter. plus, i just happen to like (studying) people.

i like conceptual art and post modernism, i'm big on "the medium is the message" across multiple planes, not just advertising. i wanted my brand to express not only myself, but the tensions in branding as we work to 'humanize' brands. so when i decided to write a blog, i wanted to bring that to it--that essence of my own understanding and how i was going to consume advertising as a product.

so for me, becoming the girl Riot™ isn't about anonymity; i don't say anything under Riot that i wouldn't say to your face. i go to lunch with people from many agencies and present myself as Riot. i'll tell you where i work, and if you care or want to recommend me, if you really need my name, i'll give it. i'm not afraid of tying my 'real life' to this one because they're one and the same: it's about craft. the very craft we are supposed to create elsewhere.

craft from what shoes i wear to my punctuation and capitalization usage to my business politics. i just wanted to own my own 'craft,' and i give that impression best in person, so it's not about pure anonymity. it's about the bridge between advertising and real life. "people don't read advertising, they read what interests them... sometimes, that's advertising" (Gossage).

in short, it's the actual meta craft of advertising and our interaction with it that i wanted to draw attention to by creating the girl Riot™.

---
previously on revolution, inc. :: in a name.

first impressions: myspace, facebook newness.

Facebook redesign: shitty. too many tabs. sure, it was a little cluttered before, but i liked it. i went and i got a whole view of a person. i know it's silly, but it is honest to say: i don't have time for your tabs. i'm not going to check your apps, which sucks for those of us sharing Flair or using SocialVibe, to name a few. i also don't understand why the default tab is my conversations while my information is secondary. also, don't need to know about my friends' friends. should we just rename this Stalkers Unite? aka: "i don't care who you are, i just care about what you do." a message that seems to correlate to the advertisers, who think i need to Detox before the end of summer. hello. i don't think you could be talking to a "cleaner" girl. i just hope i can continue using the "old" format. take home message: this redesign verifies this shift.

MySpace openID: hesitant. it's not that i'm opposed to openID, in fact i'm sure it'll make a lot of folks' lives a lot easier. it's that i'm possibly (jury is still out) opposed to what it represents. at first i'm sure it'll be compulsory. after all, not everyone wants an openID. and all the merrier. openID, not openID, whatever. but people will push so that it'll function fully integrated. it will eventually become the only option. moreover, those who don't conform to the openID datamania will suffer from "inauthenticity." in a space where transparency is vital, it will be socially understood that those not authenticated with an openID have "something to hide." problematic for those of us who handle multiple IDs (corporate, personal, etc) unless we are able to use these services via multiple openIDs.

the stone gods, revisited.

alright, if you're a frequent reader of my blog, you may have noticed my references to "the stone gods" every now and then. it's actually a book by Jeanette Winterson, a wonderfully difficult current English writer. my favourite author, in truth. even though, like her other novels, it deals on some level with love triangles, gender roles, time variance, and other nuances of plot, i frequently find a lot of it relevant to advertising, marketing, and PR. that could also be because it's a futuristic book (see excerpt here, with the tour of the Blue Planet).

as i touched on briefly with the issue of transference in music, many things are becoming increasingly intangible as we move forward. American Shelf Life touched on this briefly with regards to money (and the decreased use of bills) but did not consider the same implications. it's something that the main character, Billie, in the Stone Gods had to deal with. all of their money was "theoretical" in the sense that ours is (with regards to cards). they had Credits.

problem with things you can't touch, that you can't own? problems with releasing data, this thing you can't take back? you don't know, can't control, where it goes. Billie falls into disfavour with the government. the Credits she "has" suddenly disappear. she can't park her car, her house is taken away. sounds familiar, right? like some case of stolen identity. except there's no law to protect that. any records of transference, done without her permission, have been deleted. as a friend once said in his blog, "What makes you think that because something is written down on a piece of paper it becomes true?"

i love this future we have coming. but in this theoretical space, i also have no issues around my own transparency and my own fear for it. i do use my debit card far more than cash. i had those same experience @SarahHutton described. but so what happens if our money becomes Credits? does that make you feel safer? or does it not concern you; does it not matter? i'd really be interest in the thoughts outside my own head on this one.

my first Facebook breakup. there's a point.

so, being a digital native has certainly made breakups more awkward. i know this has been touched on, especially with regards to the "surprise" breakup, where you log in and suddenly you're not in a relationship. oops!

...that's not what happened to me.
i was one of the original Facebookers. my college was one of the first 50, i think, if not less. this recent relationship was very long. it was the first one to be recorded by Facebook in my life, and now the first to go, it's evident how Facebook is changing relationships.

we actually had to have a Facebook Conversation. we broke up. does that mean we unFacebook each other right away? is it so important that we leave one another's presence and, to properly lifestream, we do it the same day?

...or do we wait a few days? to affect our own nonchalance. or because we don't want to talk about it. or in case we do that strange thing where we break up and get back together. better just not to change it until we're sure, right?

yes, i really did have that conversation.
apparently, Facebook is the measure of just how official my relationship is.
[can i get a "fucked up"?]

we Facebook broke up five days after our actual breakup. it was my decision. i woke up this morning thinking, you know what, it's time to Facebook it. it sucked. moreover, what was even weirder?

it lists my ex as "In a Relationship" as the new status.
apparently when i "Cancal a Relationship" [because it's a transaction, you know: "you never give away your heart; you lend it from time to time. if it were not so, how could we take it back without asking?" -- winterson] i only cancel it on my end. i'm single. the ex is "In a Relationship" with no one, but since it's a new listing, it gets broadcast like it's a new relationship.

...really, really awkward.
not to mention if i hadn't Facebook-stalked my ex right away and noticed this error, i likely would have been hella fuckin' pissed when i noticed in three days. and now i have to go text my ex to warn that i did it, so it doesn't look like a jab. or before weird phonecalls start coming about the New Relationship.

but my question: where is the broken heart?

revolution, inc. :: in a name.

so some folks have already been coaxing me out of anonymity, a leap i'm not quite ready to make yet--but don't let that dissuade you from any fancy invitations you may want to be sending my direction ;) contact information doesn't change. but, in light of this, i've always been, well, a tease. rather than tell you all about me... i'm going to do scattered posts about facets of myself. what i like or don't, what i own or won't, where i come from, what i eat--whatever brings you closer to me.

think of it like a scavenger hunt. or a riddle.
---

so like anything else, i'm going to start at the middle, because it's more interesting than the beginning.

we'll start with the name, because someone asked me about it yesterday. naming is an intensely important thing. naming has always held weight. and still does. why call the "me series" revolution, inc? it ties in with the essential question;

why Riot?

i have been called Riot, in real life, since high school. and no--it has nothing to do with Paramore; i predate their second album, thank you very much. i had a guy friend then who introduced himself to me as Tony Rebel. he had me going for a minute, but not for long.

i adopted Riot as my pseudonym surname then, selecting the word because i'm really into riot grrrl music, a female-emphasized development out of punk rock in the early to mid 90s. i love Kathleen Hanna (see image above) who was in most notably Bikini Kill, Le Tigre, and Julie Ruin. she helped/inspired Slim Moon to make Kill Rock Stars, a notable indie label even today. (did you know Nirvana was on it for a hot minute?)

the movement meant a lot to me in high school, and still does. i did research on it in college, actually, surrounding commercialism, capitalism and the consumerism (or lack therof) of riot grrrl music (like how punk rock was appropriated, but not riot grrrl). "revolution grrrl style now" was a mantra used. in college, i used my name with the Riot surname as my DJ name for the radio station, 92WICB.

since switching my focus from band management/PR to English/marketing my freshman year, Riot was recreated in accord with my views on branding. while creating a story character i fell in love with, who was a DJ, i inverted "the riot grrrl" to be "the girl Riot" (i wasn't big on the grrr, personally)--and it stuck. and so, i'm the first to coin the phrase.

oh hey, yeah, you know--that girl, Riot? that girl called Riot. her.

so i became the girl Riot™. i treat myself as a brand, both professionally and often personally; so, in line with that, i go by Riot rather than my given name. if you Googled me, you would find more information searching "thegirlriot" than my actual name. no joke.

...so now you know.

---
and besides, it's a friday post. who reads those, anyway?

revisiting facebook, jobs, millenials

in light of this post, i'm revisiting this post.

i wonder if this is going to change.

me, i am a brand. i embrace my inner brand and utilize it. i am the CEO of the brand of the girl Riot™. however, even CEOs get to go home. no one is Cheerios, or BMW, or Adidas all day long. even Adi, Adidas' founder, shares the responsibility with other well-titled folks. at one point, you go home. you sleep. you see friends. you connect with other people. you know... a la the point of social media: being social. and after hours, i'm sure they don't all sleep in Armani and talk jargon in their theta-state.

what gives you the right to inspect a person's private life for their job?

isn't that what applying is about? references, presentations, self-craft. now we're pushing away from that, toward transparency. "twit-pitch me. tell me what you're after and how you can help me--i'll do the background check. nevermind that you can't control what pictures other folks put up of you. nevermind that you can no longer access accounts to things you created, age 14. nevermind what exploration you did in your youth years that made you a good creative--i don't want to see it."

then how transparent are you, really? you want the real person--but only after they've covered their tracks? deleted their pics during those college years everyone had but everyone is supposed to deny? it's a shame facebook wasn't around when you Xers and Boomers were younger. are we handling this like 50s prudes asked to sit in on a sex addicts' meeting in a church basement? if you don't want the "full story" then why are you looking? keep it to the "legit" side of things. we craft those.

sure, check out their blog, their website, their portfolio, newspapers who reference them, other blogs who link to them. i'm not saying don't Google search. i'm saying to assess your digital detective choices--chances are you won't find that information solely on their facebook accounts. to me, that level of invasion borders on pervy. all 100+ pics of me on facebook? i haven't uploaded one. not one. i don't care if it's "personal and public"--it's discerned as a private space for friends (unlike, say, Twitter, which is searchable, Google tracked, and anyone can follow). just like your brand is not my friend, my employer is not my friend unless i invite you in. those spaces are not about you. they're about me.

and i'll be damned if you want me to censor my life to fit your desk job. you wanted a forward-thinking creative, you wanted experience and intellect--this shaped me. this is who i am. and yes, my stuff is on private. but then you're going to want to know why it's on private, aren't you? i'm supposed to connect with friends but not with employers. can i have a "only folks born 1986 or later can access this profile" option? why do i have to keep my personal life private if the whole reason of having the profile is to share?

moreover--will this disdain for (supposed) transparency change as more millenials enter the work space?

and if you think just cos i can do a keg-stand that i'm going to do one with your client, then i'm really concerned. my maturity isn't directly related to my flip cup abilities (which, mind you, are stellar). don't ask for transparency (look at personal sites) if you don't want it. my brand is excellently crafted. my personal life isn't. and if you can tell me how to control all aspects of your personal life, that's really a blog post worth writing.

so i return the question to you all:
how well do you expect someone to cover their tracks? what are you really looking to get out of trawling potential employees' facebooks and myspaces as opposed to their blogs, LinkedIns, websites? ...what are you really expecting? --and will those expectations change?

[post script & further transparency--i had a really engaging conversation with Jason Falls about his post; this is not an affront on his views: i actually highly value and understand them, and respect him, which is why i engaged in the conversation to begin with. after all, my facebook is on private. i'm just arguing that it shouldn't have to be.]