Yearly Archives: 2011

Breakfast: breaking stuff quickly

I have been digging around doing research for the new book.  And I just came across a not-agency called Breakfast.  It sounds like a Culturematic powerhouse.

It is also very likable.  Breakfast has done several brilliant things, including:

1.  A bike called Precious that reported its experience was ridden across the country.

“Precious’s brain is an on-board device that captures all of his experiences, combined with a cloud-based system that analyzes those experiences. Put this all together and get a bike that’s able to express itself in his own words. He shares his up-to-the-moment thoughts and has a subconscious which allows him to dream about all he’s been through.” (from the Breakfast website: http://www.breakfastny.com)

2.  A red phone that they leave with prospective clients. The client only needs to pick up the phone to be put in touch with one of the Breakfast partners.

I am honestly not sure how this works, but I think the idea is that Breakfast leaves the phone at the clients without much explanation. Who can resist picking up a red phone, especially when it has a blinking red light?

Client reaction? Here’s one, transcribed from the Breakfast website. It is the Senior Vice President of Entertainment Marketing at Turner. She says “This is the coolest thing I have had any agency send! This is awesome!!!”

3.  All of this is done in a manner of that is as seeking, forthright, and scientific as possible. See the “full disclosure” diagram above and especially its “seperatory funnel” and “client fluid.”  The Breakfast website sums things up:

Just like the brilliant Edison and Bell discovered, inventing groundbreaking technology doesn’t happen first go. Think, draw, prototype, break. Then do it all again. We take pride in the fact that we break a lot of things. With purpose, and in an effort to invent new and unique ways to help clients reach people.

For more on Breakfast and co-founders Andrew Zolty, Mattias Gunneras, and Michael Lipton, go here.

Pizza boxes: the new trojan horse?

Have a look at this “Food for thought” card, please. There it is at the bottom of the screen. It appeared recently with my store-bought pizza.

Optimism, action, imagination and conversation, all of these are good things.  And I agree that food is an important link with the world.  

But I was a little surprised to hear about them from my pizza box.  Yes, I get it.  Food, planet, environment, this is a new trinity.  Respecting this trinity through an overhaul of lifestyle is the new desideratum.  Check.  Caring about this thing and encouraging other people to care about it too, this is the new orthodoxy.  I not only get this.  I subscribe to it.

But there is something unseemly about being instructed in this sort of thing by a brand. There is presumption of familiarity.  For the brand to speak to me in this tone means that the brand must know me.  There is also a presumption of asymmetry.  In our relationship, the brand knows better.  Finally, there is that recitation of the new cosmology: that stuff about food connecting us to the world.  

I agree with everything being said (give or take).  But I am a little uncomfortable when these things are being said to me…by a brand.  

Unless of course there really is a new orthodoxy and certain powers are entitled to recite this orthodoxy and the rest of us are obliged to listen to it.  And if that’s the case, someone forgot to tell me.

Apparently, I missed that box.  

on social climbing and the royal wedding

As the Royal wedding approaches, there is a Tsunami of Kate Middleton coverage headed our way.

Much is being made of her social origins. Not grand enough, apparently.

Indeed, Kate is being called a climber.

“Kate and [sister] Pippa were dubbed the Wisteria Sisters
because, as one wag put it: “They’re highly decorative, terribly
fragrant, and have a ferocious ability to climb.”” [Daily Beast]

But this made me think of the wonderful comment someone made about Eton, that it was not so much a school for gentlemen as their fathers.

Britain has always been a place of status mobility. Despite the 16th century claim that it takes 5 generations to wash away the “taint” of commonality, people would rise much more quickly, sometimes make the transition in two generations.

The English are very good at two things. Theatre and History. And they are particularly good at using the first to reinvent the second.  If you can act the part, mastering the codes of behavior, clothing, housing, language, all, you may rise. Efforts will then be made to “paper over” the speedy ascent, and Bob is no longer your uncle. Now his name is Robert.

It is just possible that the industrial and consumer revolution happened in Britain because Britain allowed upward mobility in a way that France and Spain would not. And so was a contradiction managed: a status system intertwined with a meritocracy.

Go, Kate, grow.

Reference.

Pearson, Allison. 2011. Citizen Kate. Newsweek/Daily Beast. April 11.

Acknowledgment.

Image of a ruler is from the Noun Project at http://www.thenounproject.com.

Minerva contest: recasting NCIS

In her comment on the NCIS recasting post, Jean Latting said she thought she might ask her class to have a go.

And I thought, “but of course, this is an excellent Minerva contest.  Why didn’t I think of that?”  

So here is the question.  We are phrasing this one in the form of a Harvard Business School Case study:

“Don Bellisario, the creator of NCIS who left the show in 2007, has decided to return. [This is false and asserted here merely to supply a compelling pretext.]  

Mr. Bellisario wants to freshen the show with some casting changes. What should he do?

From the Culturematic given below, please choose 1 new actor and tell us what effect it would have on the show. Specifically, what difference would this difference make to the show, the dramatic and cultural terrain it can now cover.

Now choose 1 actor from the list you would NOT cast, and tell us very specifically why he or she would be wrong for the part and the show.

Now give us your ideal 5 choices and explain these actors bring to the show individually and as an ensemble.  How would NCIS now speak from and to contemporary culture?

Conditions:

One thousand words.

Point form ok.

Be imaginative, concise and interesting.  Find your assumptions and express your assumptions.  Show off your knowledge and mastery of popular culture

Winner gets a Minerva (as pictured) and a place in our Hall of Fame.

deadline: one month from today, i.e., May 13, 2011.

Judges:

To be announced

Backgrounder:

The Minervas were created to encourage people to ask cultural questions and craft cultural answers.

Winners so far:

Juri Saar (for the “Who’s a good doggie woggie?” contest)

Reiko Waisglass (for the “Who’s a good doggie woggie?” contest)

Brent Shelkey (for the “Who’s a good doggie woggie?” contest)

Daniel Saunders (for the “JJ Abrams vs. Joss Whedon” contest)

Tim Sullivan (for the “Karen Black vs. Betty White” contest)

Lauren LaCascia (for the “Showtime vs. USA Networks” contest)

Diandra Mintz (for the “Showtime vs. USA Networks” contest)

Mark Boles (for the “Antique Roadshow vs. Pawn stars” contest)

Indy Neogy (for the “Nordic Noir” contest)

Judges so far:

Members of the faculty of the SVA (School of Visual Arts) ‘masters in branding’ program,
specifically:

Debbie Millman

Pamela DeCesare

Dan Formosa

Tom Guarriello

Scott Lerman

and Richard Shear

Also:

Rick Boyko, Director and Professor, VCU Brandcenter

Schuyler Brown, Skylab

Bryan Castaneda, Attorney At Law

Ana Domb, C3, MIT

Mark Earls, author, Herd

Brad Grossman, Grossman and Partners

Christine W. Huang, PSFK, Huffington Post and Global Hue

Steve Postrel

 

WGBH listeners, welcome

Hello to those who just heard me speak on WGBH.  I was grateful that Callie mentioned this website, but I am a little unprepared!

Please have a look around.

Those who are interested in following up my argument about American material culture might like the following essay:

McCracken, Grant. 2005. “‘Homeyness’ A Cultural Account of One Constellation of Consumer Goods and Meanings.” Culture and Consumption II.  Indiana University Press, pp. 22-47.  Available on Amazon here.

Thanks for listening!
 

Recasting NCIS, a culturematic in action

Choose one from each column.  

Keep choosing until you have recast NCIS to your liking.  

Notice the dramatic difference a casting difference makes.  This is culture in action.

For extra points, identify the mechanics of this Culturematic.

Experiential Marketing, Part II

Please come have a look at my HBR thoughts on the future of experience marketing.  Here

Being Human, US and UK versions

I am a big fan of Being Human, the US version, that recently appeared on SyFy.  

It’s a wonderful “what if.”

What if there was a vampire, werewolf, and a ghost living in a house together?  I have to say that my initial response was puzzlement.  As in, “um, er, I don’t know. What would happen if they lived together?”

Some part of the show comes from how well the producers work out the “what if” in a manner that satisfies my sense of the plausible and takes me places I never would have guessed.  Being Human works a productive balance between “oh, that makes sense to me” and “wow, how interesting!”  

The new media consumer is especially fond of things that satisfy a sense of the plausible and the possible.  (We get to keep a foot in the familiar and one in the new.)  Managing both is key…and difficult.  (I was able to predict the death of The Good Guys early because it was clear it could not find this balance.) 

When Pam got me Apple TV for my recent birthday, I was thrilled to see that it contained BBC America and that this contained Being Human, the UK version.

What a delicious opportunity to consume what Henry Jenkins calls “transmedia,” one story told in more than a single form.  (I know someone is going to object that both shows are TV and this is not transmedia. Saying that British and American TV are the same medium is like saying British and American football are the same game.)  This transmedia opportunity is sweetened by the fact that the media in question are transatlantic. With their special relationship, the UK and US continue to be, for certain purposes, variations on a theme. How interesting then to see what these two cultures would do with the same cultural artifact. 

The first thing to notice is a bit stunning.  In the old regime, the American version of a transatlantic exercise would feature actors who were more beautiful and less talented. This is NOT what is happened in the case of Being Human.  The UK actors are better looking and the US actors might actually be the better actors.  (They may be tied on the acting question.) 

This tells us that American TV is getting better or at least ballsier.  Not to lead with beauty, or (to think of this as the trade-off it probably it was) to go with talent even when it costs you beauty, that’s a big shift for an American culture producer.  

The second point is harder to assess.  Being Human uses diversity to propel itself out of genre.  By this time, we have a pretty good idea of what and who vampires are.  Indeed, the genre is starting to congeal and now takes quite deliberate innovations (True Blood) to sustain life (all puns intended).  Ghosts too.  As a culture we have gone from having no idea what a ghost is to having a pretty clear script.  (Blame Whoopi) Goldberg.  Werewolves, not so much. 

So Being Human has a built-in “refresh” feature.  Just as we are beginning to think “been there, done that” about any one of the subgenres, we are obliged to follow the story line as it crosses these subgenres.  Or, less abstractly, just as we are thinking “vampires, yawn” we are obliged to watch a vampire interact with a werewolf and then a ghost.  New life returns to the vampire.  (ditto).  And definition comes to the werewolf.   

In effect, Being Human is an interesting and successful TV series because it is not the product of the grammar that comes from genre.  It is interesting and successful because it contains a grammar that helps it escape genre.  It is not generated but generative.  Being Human contains the secret that characterizes all the culture we care about these days.  It is both familiar and unpredictable, both from genre and beyond genre.  

Culturematic II: the nuts and bolts

(please read yesterday’s post before reading this one)

The point of the Culturematic is that it can “think” things we cannot.  

Barry Bonds and David Brooks, these two people are worlds away.  I would submit that there are virtually no naturally occurring circumstances in which their names would appear together.  

More to the point, they are disparate elements in a very diverse culture, so that even if we were to find these names sitting together, we would dismiss this as noise.  Actively making a conjunction between them?  Unthinkable.  No, really, I mean this literally: unthinkable.  

What I needed then was a simple program that would make random combinations.  I can’t program.  I don’t even know the basics of HTML.  (Sad, really, but there you are.)

So I was going to have to find one on line.  It took all of Saturday and most of Sunday, hunting first for the right search terms and then for the code.

Eventually I found The Virtual Professor.  This is a wonderful invention of someone at the University of Chicago Writing Program.  The VP creates spectacularly inflated pieces of academic rhetoric.  The author claims his/her intent is not rhetorical.  Hmm.

I lifted the code from TVP and I downloaded a trial version of Adobe Dreamweaver.   So now I was working with code I did not understand on a program I did not know.  

First, I replaced TVP noun list with the following

Noun = new Array();
Noun[0] = “Mel Gibson”;
Noun[1] = “Hulk Hogan”;
Noun[2] = “Bono”;
Noun[3] = “Barry Bonds”;
Noun[4] = “David Letterman”;
Noun[5] = “Hillary Clinton”;
Noun[6] = “Martha Stewart”;
Noun[7] = “Tyra Banks”;
Noun[8] = “Janice Jackson”;
Noun[9] = “David Brooks”;
Noun[10] = “Jon Stewart”;
Noun[11] = “Tom Ford”;
Noun[12] = “Oprah Winfrey”;
Noun[13] = “Arianna Huffington”;
Noun[14] = “Mos Def”;
Noun[15] = “LL Cool J”;
Noun[16] = “Mark Harmon”;
Noun[17] = “Bryan Singer”;
Noun[18] = “Judd Apatow”;
Noun[19] = “Jennifer Lopez”;
Noun[20] = “Jon Stewart”;
Noun[21] = “Malcolm Gladwell”;
Noun[22] = “Sean Combs”;
Noun[23] = “Christopher Hitchens”;
Noun[24] = “Graydon Carter”;
Noun[25] = “Kathy Griffin”;
Noun[26] = “Barbara Walters”;
Noun[28] = “Henry Kissenger”;
Noun[27] = “Skip Bayles”;
Noun[29] = “Joss Whedon”;
Noun[30] = “Johnny Depp”;
Noun[31] = “Francis Ford Coppola”;
Noun[32] = “Tom Cruise”;
Noun[33] = “Lorne Michaels”;
Noun[34] = “Diane Swayer”;
Noun[35] = “Katy Perry”;
Noun[36] = “Quinton Tarrantino”;
Noun[37] = “Madonna”;
Noun[38] = “JJ Abrams”;
Noun[39] = “Tina Fey”;
Noun[40] = “Charlie Sheen”;
Noun[41] = “Stephen Hawking”;
Noun[42] = “Natalie Portman”;
Noun[43] = “Hugh Laurie”;
Noun[44] = “Clay Shirky”;
Noun[45] = “Tiger Woods”;
Noun[46] = “Jay-Z”;
Noun[47] = “LeBron James”;
Noun[48] = “Jennifer Aniston”;
Noun[49] = “Howard Stern”;
Noun[50] = “Glenn Beck”;
Noun[51] = “Ryan Seacrest”;
Noun[52] = “Kenny Chesney”;
Noun[53] = “Robert Pattison”;
Noun[54] = “Cameron Dias”;
Noun[55] = “Stephanie Meyer”;
Noun[56] = “Stephen King”;
Noun[57] = “Sarah Jessica Parker”;
Noun[58] = “Lil Wayne”;
Noun[59] = “Julia Roberts”;
Noun[60] = “Brad Pitt”;
Noun[61] = “Richard Branson”;
Noun[62] = “Bill Clinton”;
Noun[63] = “Lady Gaga”;
Noun[64] = “Sandra Bullock”;
Noun[65] = “Simon Cowell”;
Noun[66] = “Pink”;
Noun[67] = “Dr. Phil”;
Noun[68] = “Beyonce”;
Noun[69] = “Taylor Swift”

Not a perfect list.  I was watching the English version of Being Human on Apple TV (my birthday gift) and who knows what effect this had.  Two days later, its clear to me that this list ought to have cast the net more widely than it does.  More sports heroes, politicians, journalists, captains of industry and so on.  I mean “Rupert Murdock,” how could I miss him?

I contemplated the idea that I should combine two names and a pretext.  So I added some pretexts or “modifiers.”  As with any Culturematic, I wasn’t really sure what it was I was trying to do.  As with any Culturematic, the idea seemed to be to “try it and see.”  As I noted in yesterday’s post, one of the output here was:

Lady Gaga and Glenn Beck struggle to establish a parent-child dynamic.

And I liked this a lot.  I could engage in the wildest thought possible and it would take me years and years to think of something so successfully strange.  (The simpler option would be to take one name, not two, from my noun list.  I didn’t test this.)

But was this combo when that was useful for any useful purpose?  That will take some conjuring.  I think it tells us at least that the postmodernists are wrong when they insist things have been draining of meaning.  If this were true, this output would be less strange, less distant, less hard to put out.  

Here is my list of pretexts.  They are a bit daft.  Again remember I was watching Being Human.  (They sound now like vaguely like David Letterman “top ten” lists.  But you have to try.)

Modifier = new Array();
Modifier[0] = “trying to persuade Les Moonves to back their new show”;
Modifier[1] = “trying to set up a Fair Trade Network in South America”;
Modifier[2] = “consider swapping identities”;
Modifier[3] = “have agreed to sing the National anthem at next year’s Superbowl”;
Modifier[4] = “are thinking about buying an African nation, a small one”;
Modifier[5] = “are starting up a hip little art gallery in the NYC meat packing district”;
Modifier[6] = “are breaking into a Hershey’s factor under cover of darkness”;
Modifier[7] = “eating together in a Paris cafe”;
Modifier[8] = “fighting for a place in line outside an Apple store”;
Modifier[10] = “sharing a Glee episode”;
Modifier[11] = “going to a Harley rally”;
Modifier[12] = “join forces to fight the power”;
Modifier[14] = “ask Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to fund their Tikibar”;
Modifier[15] = “working hard on their syncopated swimming routine”;
Modifier[16] = “take to a lighthouse in Newfoundland”;
Modifier[17] = “driving an Airstream to SxSW”
Modifier[18] = “struggle to establish a parent-child dynamic”;
Modifier[20] = “fighting the tyranny of big budgets”;
Modifier[21] = “consider swapping identities”;
Modifier[23] = “are thinking about giving up tenure”;
Modifier[24] = “consider swamping identities”;
Modifier[25] = “come up with a new peace plan for the Middle East”;
Modifier[26] = “wondering why all men can’t be brothers”;
Modifier[27] = “looking for a future on reality TV”;
Modifier[28] = “surfing the conceptual drift”;
Modifier[29] = “hoping for a show of their own on ESPN”;
Modifier[30] = “in a Paris cafe”;
Modifier[31] = “working the tension between nature and history”;
Modifier[32] = “looking for their own show on USANetwork”;
Modifier[33] = “deciding who has the upper hand”;
Modifier[34] = “think we’ve been a little hard on Tiger Woods”;
Modifier[35] = “wondering how we invented pop culture”;
Modifier[36] = “have had it up to here with ‘high’ culture”;
Modifier[37] = “riding the new train to Tibet, under protest”;
Modifier[38] = “can’t decide: Antigue Roadshow or Pawn Stars”;
Modifier[39] = “putting the industry in the culture industry”;
Modifier[40] = “are thinking of going all artisanal all the time”;
Modifier[41] = “, working on new concepts of civil society”;
Modifier[42] = “thinking someone should send Charlie Sheen a fruit basket”;
Modifier[43] = “committing to post-Hegelian criticism one day at a time”;
Modifier[44] = “trying to decide which one is the Other”;
Modifier[45] = “winning, duh!”;
Modifier[46] = “mining indeterminacy”;
Modifier[47] = “think there is really something rum about the academic world”;
Modifier[48] = “in a Paris cafe”;
Modifier[49] = “sky diving together”;
Modifier[50] = “Venture capital in the intellectual world”;
Modifier[51] = “are wondering, ‘that’s what you’re going with?'”;
Modifier[52] = “think it’s perfectly ok to answer a question with a question”;
Modifier[53] = “think it’s not too late for you to become an anthropologist”;
Modifier[54] = “are building their own Culturematic laboratory”;
Modifier[55] = “wonder if Austin is still as great as it used to be”;
Modifier[56] = “Outward bound”;
Modifier[57] = “believe in disinterested observation”;
Modifier[58] = “an anthropocentric experiment”;
Modifier[59] = “rocking the Dewey Decimal System”;
Modifier[60] = “want two of the roles in Being Human”;
Modifier[61] = “sharpen their chops as master story tellers”;
Modifier[62] = “are they commodified objects? Oh, come on!”;
Modifier[63] = “embrace corporeality?”
Modifier[64] = “looking for triumph in all the wrong places”
Modifier[65] = “famous, but still looking for their mooring”
Modifier[66] = “are not sure in all comes down to factual knowledge, after all”;
Modifier[67] = “still believe in the Red Sox”;
Modifier[68] = “thinking of staring a trailer court in the public sphere”;
Modifier[69] = “went off Starbucks well before you”;
Modifier[70] = “looking for hidden messages and the secret code”;
Modifier[71] = “opening their own digital agency”;
Modifier[72] = “searching for autonomous selfhood”;
Modifier[73] = “have heard some stuff about Area 51”;
Modifier[74] = “still waiting for the Wikipedia page”;
Modifier[75] = “fighting the effects of rank prejudice”;
Modifier[76] = “think LeBron should have stayed in Cleveland”;
Modifier[77] = “thinking about switching homes and lives”;
Modifier[78] = “switched at birth!”;
Modifier[79] = “struggle to remain civil”;
Modifier[80] = “well concealed Amtrak enthusiasts”;
Modifier[81] = “treats celebrity as a contagion”;
Modifier[82] = “exploring materiality in a digtal age”;
Modifier[83] = “learning the rules of a celebrity economy”;
Modifier[84] = “searching for a narrative sequence that does not require a car chase”;
Modifier[85] = “unsafe at any speed”;
Modifier[86] = “boldly embracing romantic inwardness”;
Modifier[87] = “two words; road trip now”;
Modifier[89] = “are not binary opposites”;
Modifier[90] = “still hoping for a chance in Triple A baseball”;
Modifier[91] = “taunting the abyss”;
Modifier[92] = “think Brazil is where the future happens”;
Modifier[93] = “wish that Gen Xers would just get over it”;
Modifier[94] = “really sick and tired of enlightenment rationalism”;
Modifier[95] = “speaking the unspoken”;
Modifier[96] = “mainstreaming marginal worlds”;
Modifier[97] = “knowing the unknowable”;
Modifier[98] = “assault the market place”;
Modifier[99] = “hoping for a spot on TMZ”;
Modifier[100] = “putting celebrity gossip behind them”;

So now the hard part.  How to change the Virtual Professor Code in order to make this Culturematic.  It’s really just horrible to admit to this.  I just kept making changes in the code with the hope of producing the output I was looking for.  The Javanese have a metaphor for stupidity: a water buffalo listening to a symphony.  Consider me so.  Here’s what I “did” to the code.

function Pootwattle(){
EraseAll(document.getElementById(“Voila”));

subject = pickAny(Noun);
object = pickAnother(Noun, subject);

bookref = pickAny(BookRef);
reviewverb = pickAny(ReviewVerb);

//The sentences are constructed here:

var PootSays = “” + subject + ” ” +
verb + ” ” + object + ” ” + objmodifier + “”;

var SmedSays = “” + objmodifier + ” ” + “”;

There must be several people out there who can do better than this.  Please do better than this!

Acknowledgements

I owe thanks to three inspirations for this exercise.  

First, to Bud Caddell for showing me that the spirit, indeed, the genius, of the Victorian inventor in contemporary guise.  

Second, to David Bausola, aka “zero influencer,” for his brilliant work creating, to use the fancy linguistics lingo, “syntagmatic chains out of paradigmatic classes.”

Third, to the Writing Program at the University of Chicago.  Please would you let me know the name of the author of this program. 

Build your own Culturematic. (I did.)

Imagine hitting “generate” and getting:

Mos Def and Tina Fey

This is your output from a Culturematic machine.  

The machine does something really simple. It selects two names from a list at random.

The point of the exercise?  Practically, this Culturematic machine could be used for making culture, specifically, casting movies and TV shows. Formally, it can be used for exploring our culture.  

I have run my Culturematic many times now, and some of the outputs are not interesting.  

Bill Clinton and Barbara Walters

This isn’t especially interesting because we can so easily imagine one interviewing the other. 

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh

This is not interesting, because, well, you know.  They come from the same part of the world.

Madonna and Lady Gaga.

Ditto.  

It’s when the Culturematic brings together far-flung worlds that our interest is piqued.  (At least mine is.  I realize that I am working off my own idiosyncratic reactions here.)

Mos Def and Tina Fey

This is interesting.  I can think about Mos Def.  And I can think about Tina Fey.  Thinking about them at the same time is difficult…and therefore interesting.  

It is precisely because they are far flung creatures that we would not normally think to bring them together.  

That’s what the Culturematic is for.  Because it’s a machine, it doesn’t know from culture. It’s happy to make combinations we wouldn’t think of.   And that’s what makes it valuable: for casting and for exploration.  (“Date Night” starring Tina Fey and Steve Carell was interesting. Replace Steve Carell with Mos Def and interesting becomes interestinger.)

Version 2

In this version, the Culturematic takes two names and combines them with a phrase.  Here are some of the outputs I have got from my Culturematic:

Lady Gaga and Glenn Beck struggle to establish a parent-child dynamic.

Pink and Richard Branson, working on new concepts of civil society.

Christopher Hitchens and Graydon Carter, looking for triumph in all the wrong places.

This is interesting for another reason.  It forces us to take our cultural knowledge (celebrities are particularly useful cultural knowledge: shared, vivid, and well distributed) and use it in new ways.  We struggle to think about how Lady Gaga and Glenn Beck could have any relationship, let alone a parent-child one.  

Ok, I have run out of time.  Tomorrow, I will give you the logic and the code for my Culturematic.  (Wait till you see how I wired it together.  It’s a real mess.)  I’m hoping you will want to build one too.  (Because I know that you can do a better job.)  

Acknowledgements

Thanks for the University of Chicago writing laboratory for their precedent.  Full details tomorrow. 

Law and Order in Peril?

Stray signals are important to people who want to keep track of contemporary culture.

Here’s one from today’s Wall Street Journal.

Nordic noir, the chilling, realistic Scandinavian crime fiction that has taken movies and books by storm, is coming to American television.  The Killing, premiering April 3 on AMC, comes from the hit Danish drama “Forbrydenlsen.”

It is not intuitively obvious why there should now be so much Nordic noir in our world.  But to be sure there’s lots.  And I think we can see it moving swiftly, from page to big screen to little screen, signs of its ability to command larger audiences.

The question for the Chief Culture Officer and the rest of us: why?  What is it about Nordic noir that makes it appealing.  Why should this cultural form now threaten the standard police procedurals (Law and Order, CSI, etc) that have dominated TV for so long?  What does the rise of Nordic noir tells us about the state of American culture now?

I am not making this an official Minerva competition, but if someone comes up with a dazzlingly good answer, there’s a good chance they will get a statue!  

Reference

Chozick, Amy.  2011.  Something’s rotten in Seattle.  Wall Street Journal.  March 25. (subscription required)

Defending the 30 second TV spot (why old media still matters)

At the invitation of Bob Barocci, I gave a presentation at the ARF meetings Monday.  For reasons that are still not clear, I came to the aid of the creative industry, to the defense of the traditional 30 second spot.

Naturally, my timing was appalling.   This meeting probably marks the first in which virtually everyone in attendance “buys” the social media proposition.  So just when the late adopters arrive, yours truly stuns them with a defense of the old media.  Grant, fine work!

You can see the Volvo ad in question, by going to YouTube.  Click here.  

Hats of to the team from Euro RSCG Worldwide: Global Chief Executive Officer: David Jones, Chief Executive Officer, NY and San Francisco: Ron Berger, Executive Creative Director: Jeff Kling, Creative Director: Nick Cohen, Art Director: Julie Lamb, Copywriter: Risa Mickenberg, Contributor: Sharoz Marakechi, Jackson and Amy Richardson. Business Manager: Deborah Steeg, Talent: Dawn Kerr, PRODUCTION CREDITS, Production Company: Furlined, Director: Pekka Hara, Director of Photography: Joaquin Baca-Asay, Executive Producer: David Thorne, Producer: Rob Stark

For more on this approach to advertising, see McCracken, Grant. 2005.  Culture and Consumption: markets, meaning and brand management.  Indiana University Press.  (and especially the last chapter)

What we can learn about branding from Psych

From the Wikipedia entry: Psych is an American detective comedy-drama television series created by Steve Franks and broadcast on USA Network. It stars James Roday as Shawn Spencer, a young crime consultant for the Santa Barbara Police Department.  […] The program also stars Dulé Hill as Shawn’s best friend and reluctant partner Burton “Gus” Guster, as well as Corbin Bernsen as Shawn’s captious father, Henry.

See my post today at the Harvard Business Review on how Psych can help us build new complexity into branding and product development.  

See the post here.  

Tyra Banks, not snakes but ladders celebrity

I am sitting in a restaurant in New York City.  And who should come in but Tyra Banks?  She is more tall and less imposing than you’d expect.  Many people don’t seem to know it’s her. This ended abruptly when I stood up and shouted, “Tyra, I love you.”

Ok, not really.  Some of you will have seen the 60 Minutes piece that identifies Tyra Banks as a Harvard Business School student.  The interviewer worked very hard to get Ms. Banks to say how lucky she was to be at HBS.  But the model would not be baited.  She was happy to be at HBS but it was clearly just another part of her apotheosis.  

I got to think about how many paths there are to celebrity, how many ladders they’re are.  For awhile there most of our actors seemed to have started in stand up: Jim Carrey, Jamie Foxx, Ray Romano, Roseanne. Wanda Sykes, and all the people who have come pouring out of SNL.  Other celebrities have been birthed by sit coms, reality TV and soup operas.  J. Lo came up as a dancer.  Oprah got her start as a newscaster.  Some people event started as martial arts instructors and hairdressers.  

Clearly, the trick is to take whatever the world gives you and go from there.  And how nimble you have to be.  I was just at the ARF conference.  I was acting as the chair of my session. And because I was in Brazil until 48 hours ago (and before that scrambling to get ready for Brazil) I had not reached out to panel members to prep them for the forum.  I felt badly about this for about 15 seconds and then I thought this people, all women, all CMOs for large and mighty corporations, can handle anything on the fly.  That’s how all of us live these days. The world hurls vexing problem at us and we dispatch them in real time.  None of my panel members had a hair out of place.  

Mind you, a gift for intellectual improv is not the first requirement of modeling, I shouldn’t think.  In fact, this profession may well select for the opposite of intellectual improv.  No, I don’t know this.  And of course it is exactly what a stuck-up outsider would, glibly and stupidly, suppose.  On the other hand, that Ms. Banks might it out when so few have done so, is perhaps so measure of her gifts. 

The name of the ascendancy game is to listen very careful for the way of this new world. Talk show host.  Business school.  Enterprise.  And then quietly and with no fanfare, to separate the signal from the noise, and with real aplomb to engage.  It’s a miracle of in-fill. Other people at the table have been nodding a little stupidly and while they’ve been thinking, “I like that tie,” or “I wonder what’s for dinner,” you the former model has filleted the conversation, found the assumptions that really matter, assessed where the opportunity and danger lies for you, and formulated a response.  Some people can make 3.5 seconds go a long way.  Others are pretty much just sitting there.

I gather all the celebrities we care about have been tested in this way.  These are the few who are chosen.  It is because they can sus out what is happening in every conversation, and participate as if to the manor/manner born that it is they and not some other aspirant who gets to rise to greatness.

And this is a way of saying that the people we lioness are miracles of adaption.  The odd thing is we don’t lionize them for the adaptation.  This is the secret they keep from us.  And really it is the most important thing they can pass along.  And this is perhaps one of the features of her celebrity, that Tyra Banks is manifestly a work in progress, inspiration for the rest of us who are also, somewhat less grandly, works in progress, too.  

Charlie Sheen and why some celebrities act all crazy and everything

Ain’t no going back.  You can’t get unfamous.  You can get infamous.  But you can’t get unfamous.  Dave Chappelle

I was reading the Entertainment Weekly coverage of Charlie Sheen, and thinking about how many stars flame out.  The head shaving, the shop lifting, the outbursts, the throwing things, the ranting and raving.

There must be as many reasons for this behavior as there are celebrities.  But what if there’s a secret motive?

Maybe some of these people want to stop being famous.  

It’s hard for the non-famous to imagine this. Wealth, glamor, adulation, media coverage. What’s not to like?  

But of course the costs are high.  You give up your privacy.  You give up amiable for adulation. You take on a team that must be fed, a lifestyle that must be maintained.  But the real cost might be: you can’t leave.  Fate has claimed you.  You have lost your mobility.  You can’t go home again.  Actually, you can’t even leave the house.  

This would explain how strange these outbursts are.  Celebrities believe themselves to be as gods.  So when they tire of celebrity, I expect they believe they can just up and go.  And it’s here that they begin to glimpse the truth of Dave Chappelle’s comment above.  They are struck.

This is why it goes steadily from bad to worse.  They begin with small acts of rebellion. Attempts to scale the wall.  And those don’t work.  They try a little more bad behavior and this too leaves the door closed.  It’s not very long before they are using their talent for drama and very considerable ingenuity to see if they can just get the f*ck out of here.  

This would explain why the crisises are so public.   I mean, celebs have the money and the staff to contain or conceal their moments of difficulty.  Things find there way into Entertainment Weekly precisely because eventually that’s the very point of the exercise: is to evade the controlling power of this money and this staff.  Celebs are looking for anything that works.  

The Chappellian revelation must be a moment of pure terror.  This beautiful garment is actually a trap.  It went on so easily.  It looks so stunning.  It became you until you became it. Now it won’t come off. Now it’s time to panic. All that wealth, profile and adulation you worked so hard to get…

In their heart of heart, celebrities continue to believe in their talent and their ingenuity. Surely, they just have to work a little harder.  There has to be some way out of here.  What if I steal this piece of costume jewelry.  That should do it.  No?  What if I go on top of a building with a megaphone.  No?  Ok, what if I …   

By the time we get the news, the celeb is deep into the Chappellian cycle.  They’ve tried A and B and are now working their way to M and N.  It looks to us like they have boarded the crazy train, but in fact this is merely the last stages of a rational undertaking.  Celebrities are producing crazy behaviors only because the rational ones will not pan out.  And they are trapped.

In an interview with James Lipton on Inside the Actors Studio.  Rebroadcast on Bravo, December 18, 2006.