What is the matter with New York magazine?  This issue shows on the front cover a photograph of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie with their new baby (as pictured).

Just kidding!  Those are models.  Now that you’ve bought the magazine, the truth may be told.  In 7 point type:

Requisite disclaimer: This is a fake picture Brad is an imposter; Angelina is a computer clone.  The baby has not yet been born. 

In the typography business, 7 point type is called "mouse print."  It’s virtually invisible.

How craven do you have to fund your commercial success using someone else’s privacy (or the facsimile thereof)?  How utterly without journalist scruple to trade in the bond between parent and child?  How deeply and completely corrupt does this make you?

Using the photos of the real Jolie and Pitt would be objectionable.  But New York magazine has stuped to turning real people into avatars, the better to have them do their bidding. 

What’s especially galling is that it comes with a wink, as if to say

When New York magazine does this sort of thing it’s ok, because we’re being ironic, we’re having a little fun with the whole concept of celebrity, we’re being critical.

Ladies and gentlemen, when you hear these terms, I advise you to collect the silver and run for your lives.  There is an intellectual mountebank in the house. 

"Whole concept" is particularly telling.  What it tells you is that the speaker is having a hard time "getting their head around" an idea.  "Critical," especially when applied to "studies," "approach," or "theory," tells you that the writer is too stupid to understand that all studies, approaches and theories are "critical" except, rather too often, the ones that feel obliged to say they are. 

Come to think of it, it’s a little like saying "requisite disclaimer."  This is the kind of thing stupid people say when they’re trying to be cute.  All disclaimers are requisite.  Otherwise, we wouldn’t make them.

Oh, I’m sorry, did I give the impression that the editors and writers actually used language like "whole concept," and "critical?" 

They have made their breakfast.  Now they may lie in it. 

That means you, Adam Moss, editor-in-chief, John Homans, executive editor, and Ann Clarke, managing editor.  Shame on you.

References

McCracken, Grant. 2006.  Celebrity Culture: Muddles in the models.  This Blog Sits At The… October 10, 2005. here.

Zengerle, Jason.  2006.  Not Since Jesus.  New York.  April 17, 2006, pp. 32-39. 

A couple of days ago, I was moved to comment on Pink’s "Stupid Girls" video.  Why criticize the likes of Paris Hilton, Mary Kate Olsen, Jessica Simpson, and Lindsay Lohan?  Why would Pink need to make herself a spokesperson for "smart girls?"

I was wrong…as readers pointed out!  Tom Asacker observed that my examples of smart women were a generation or two too old.  Patricia said, "There aren’t many young celebrity women equated with high intelligence that could be mentioned as effective role models."  Anastasia Goodstein at YPulse made the good point that the high profile of the video may be taken as proof of its veracity. 

I can’t recall the last time I heard a true pop song that made a meaningful social statement to any effect. I’m sure they were made, but the fact that I don’t remember them points to the fact that they didn’t have traction in the media or culture. But now, Pink’s "Stupid Girls" is arguably pulling it off, even if the social commentary is generally off-the-cuff and fairly shallow. The fact is, it is sparking a lot of discussion, and Pink’s new role is manifesting in ways I wouldn’t have previously imagined.

So it’s time for the anthropologist to think again.  Last night I staged an informal focus group in the kitchen.  We tried to think of young women who now serve as celelbrities. (There’s a good chance we missed some.)

Here’s the list we came up with:

Beyonce
Keira Knightley
Sarah Silverman
Avril Lavigne
Little Kim
Britney Spears
Christina Aguilera
Natalie Portman
Nora Jones

A word on Sarah Silverman.  I really wanted to get this name on the list.  (Silverman is evidently smart as the dickens and I was still trying to prove my original argument.)  But it probably doesn’t belong there.  1) No one in my kitchen knew who she was.  So she is not a celebrity in the full sense of the term.  2) It turns out, she is 36 years old.  Damn.

It’s worth pointing out that Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Lindsay Lohan all went through "bad girl" moments.  This appeared designed to free them from the Disney brat pack, "not a girl, not a woman," vacuity, and to give them sufficient substance to survive the transition into older markets and new, more substantial material.  On the other hand, some will say that this new persona was a "dumbed down," that these girls were turning themselves into witless boy toys. 

Avril Lavigne is in that pop punk tradition (not so much angry as bad tempered) but I think it would be wrong that she dumbed herself down to win stardom.  The great case in point is of course Natalie Portman, Harvard educated, articulate, beautiful, charismatic.   This is I believe is what everyone means by a role model. 

Summing, there is some evidence to the contrary, but in general it appears to be true that young women (late teens, early 20s) are not supplied with an extraordinary number of smart girl exemplars.  This raises two questions: are young men? (and) is this age group ever so favored?  I leave these questions to very smart readers.

A couple of days ago, I wrote a piece about "what it’s like to be 18."  Apparently, I left one condition out: when you are 18, you are not well served by your heroes. 

References

Goodstein, Anastasia.  2006.  Pink’s Smart Girl PR.  Ypulse.  April 10, 2006. here. 

McCracken, Grant.  2006.  Pink and the stupid girl video.  This blog sits at…  March 31, 2006.  here.

McCracken, Grant.  2006.  What’s it like being 18.  This blog sits at…  March 27, 2006. here.

The future of television got a little clearer today, as news of the  Disney/ABC plan continue to trickle out. 

(Piercing this together feels a little like pouring through Pravda to figure out Soviet intentions during the Cold War.)

One thing that jumps out is a multiplicity theme.  I think that’s the "new new" here. 

What we learned today:

1.  unskippable ads will be shorter than conventional TV ads (still no indication of how "unskippable" is possible) 

2.  it appears that some people are thinking that more engaging ads will help make ads at least "less skippable."  Noreen Simmons of Unilever says, "It’s going to be a different viewing experience. Rather  than people sitting back in their chairs watching TV, this is going to be a  lean-forward experience."  This seems to resonate with the notion of "engagement advertising" recently proposed by Joe Plummer.  Clearly, this does not solve the fast-forward problem, but it appears to be part of the strategic package.

3.  assuming Disney/ABC continues to sell episodes of Lost and Desperate Housewives through the iTunes music store, the consumer will be able to choose whether to buy an episode that is ad-free (for $1.99) or watch ad-full. 

4.  Anne Sweeney, co-chair, Disney Media Networks and president, Disney-ABC Television Group, (pictured) appears unconcerned about the possibility of cannibalization (and channel discord).  Indeed, Ms. Sweeney seems to see multiple streams as a value add for the viewer.  If we miss our show in first run, we can use internet download to catch up, and iPod purchase to catch up on the run. 

(This model assumes that the viewer will not choose one stream, but work with several of them to manage the complexities of their own lives.  Some seem to assume that viewers will segment by channel choice, as they choose a single platform and use it exclusively.  This does not conform to anything else we know about the new consumers.)

5. Ms. Sweeney volunteered, "None of us live in the world of one business model."  I think this marks a big shift in the world of marketing thought and practice.  This is a senior manager saying, ‘listen, the world is multiple, we will work its complexity for our advantage and as a value ad for the consumer.’  When you think about how much the notion of cannibalization has terrorized marketing decision making, this is pretty remarkable. We might go so far as to say that Sweeney has opened up the future of TV by embracing a multiplicity model. 

6. No hint in any of this whether Sweeney will open up shows like Lost to greater cocreation.  The studios and the networks are sometimes slow to relinquish any kind of creative control to the viewer, but cocreation is precisely one of the things that encourages the use of several media and if this is one of Sweeney’s objectives, she might want to give MIT’s Henry Jenkins’ a call about this thing called "transmedia." 

7.  Sweeney was quoted today as saying,

"In the future, consumers will rely more and more on strong brands to help them navigate the digital world, and we have some of the strongest brands in entertainment. Our digital media efforts will help us strengthen our connection with our consumers. Stay tuned … because this is just the beginning."

If I were an analyst with a bet to make on Disney, this sort of talk would make me uncomfortable.  It is unquestionably true that the Disney is a choice making portal that guarantees certain standards of quality and a certain moral tone.  This makes them a favorite supplier for families struggling to rise their kids well.  Got it. 

But the world of the viewer has changed dramatically here.  (Henry Jenkins is once more the go-to guy on this question.)  We have seen the emergence of a more confident, more participatory viewer/consumer.  Now we could just as easily say,

"In the future, the brand well rely more and more on strong consumers to help them navigate the digital world…" 

And as it stands, there is nothing in these several Pravadas that suggests Sweeney understands this part of the proposition. 

In sum, the Disney move appears to take a page from the multiplicity play book.  Thus does TV change to remain the same.

References

Barnes, Brooks and Brian Sternberg.  Disney’s Web Move Shakes Up Decades-Old TV Model.  Wall Street Journal.  April 11, 2006.  B1, B2.

Bosman, Julie.  2006.  Soon, Catch "Lost" Online, a Day Later.  New York Times. April 11, 2006.  here. 

Shields, Mike.  2006.  ABC to put hit shows on line.  AdWeek on line.  April 11, 2006.  by subscription.  here.