Bailey Review: Some thoughts on our sexualised society

It was welcome news to me that the Bailey Review on the sexualisation of children is recommending tighter controls on products, services and promotions that present sexual images to children or encourage them to behave in a sexual way, but I'm not sure the measures will address the basic social problems that underlie this worrying trend.

The review proposes a 'code of conduct' for retailers, restrictions on ambient advertising (such as billboards and posters) containing sexual imagery near schools, further online restrictions, a web site where parents' concerns can be raised, and age restrictions on music videos.  All these are sensible suggestions, but for me they are still too weak in some areas.  At the crux of the issue, for me, is the overall increased sexualisation of our society, and the link this has to aspiration and celebrity.

Hugh Heffner is opening a new Playboy Club in Mayfair this evening, while selling clothing, pencil cases and duvet covers for children bearing the hallmark of his sex-made wealth.  Clearly, the porn industry is booming, and celebrity culture embraces sexiness as a means of keeping the PR machine turning.  Sex sells, as we all know; but selling sex as aspirational, as a route to success, is where I believe the real danger lies for today's children.

Clearly governments cannot afford to ignore the porn industry; it is powerful, successful, and contributes to the economy. However, porn's osmosis into mainstream culture, whilst generating further profits (and tax revenues of course), could bring with it some more alarming social consequences.

My concerns are probably too numerous for a blog post, but here are some of the key things that worry me most:

1.  Sex as a route to success
Selling children's t--shirts with the slogan 'Future Footballer's Wife' disgusts me.  Is this what we want young girls to aspire to?  Today?  Centuries of Cinderella and Jane Austen may have stacked up the stereotypes, but what parent would want this to be their child's career choice?

2. Unrealistic notions of physical perfection
The starved, siliconed, plasticated, botoxed, airbrushed, plucked, bronzed, and buffed bodies of the porn industry are constructs.  They are not real bodies.  Children, however, may not understand this.  Presenting such images as perfection and something to aspire means that 99% of people may feel they cannot achieve the standards society sets for them.  They have failed before they even get out of bed in the morning.  What a shame.

3.  Sexual expectations
The knock-on of presenting an image of perfection to aspire to is that expectations of sex and what to expect in a partner also become warped.  Expecting your partner to look and behave like a porn star or pop star (the boundaries seem to have blurred...) is a worrying trend for me, as the likelihood of a failure to match up to the fantasies presented by the media is high.  What impact will this have on relationships?

4.  Finally, and most worrying...presenting an image of sexual availability
Children who are unwittingly dressing in a sexual way, by copying their heroines...Rhianna, Cheryl Cole, Britney Spears, may be unknowingly advertising sexual availability to those predators out there who will prey on them, and may also encourage their peers to make assumptions about their sexual maturity.  A horrible thought.   

Young pop stars have such a position of power, but they don't always have the maturity to understand the impact of their actions.  Britney dressed as a schoolgirl singing a song that asked the listener to hit her was a huge success in commercial terms, but perhaps not so palatable to victims of sexual violence.

My view on the Rhianna video that caused such a stir?  Just like Madonna, Britney, Christina Aguilera etc. before her, she is being manipulated by an industry and selling what is commercial/shocking. Should she have done it?  No; particularly with her background and experiences.  Should it have been banned?  Well, I'm not a big fan of censorship, so for me the responsibility lies with the makers.  In the context of who she is, what she does, and who the audience are, Rhianna's record company should never have made that video.  Pop stars saying they enjoy being treated violently by sexual partners may sell records, but if it contributes to a generation growing up thinking that that is what everyone wants from a sexual relationship, our society will not be a pretty place in ten or twenty years time...

The bottom line? Porn has its place in our world, but for me that will never be on Saturday night entertainment shows, in derogatory music videos or in children's clothing ranges.

Call me a prude, I don't care.

The Evil Office: Mission, Motivation and the Moral Imperative

Say it quickly and you might mix it up with something more presidential...but the evil office is something we've been pondering in our own little office on the fourth floor since last Friday. 

Following a meandering discussion and brainstorm of the possible re-uses of spent Bic pens (placemats, insect hotels etc. - please add any further suggestions in the comments box below), Friday afternoon in the LG/SO office ended with a discussion on the nature of Evil (with a capital 'E').  This was prompted by some wild speculation on my behalf on the motives of people in the public eye for their actions and from the suggestion that adopting Google's famously simple (and possibly ironic, although that's another discussion) 'Don't be Evil' mission was something that I believe could have a profound effect on people.

Within a few minutes we had knocked up and hung our own 'Don't be Evil' poster on the office wall, with a view to running a pseudo experiment to gauge the reactions of those who encounter it in our office.  The first person to walk into the office noticed it straight away and commented on it.  I can confirm that they were in no way evil whilst in the office (so far so good).

Measuring evil is, however, quite a difficult thing to do.  First you have to define it.  This is not easy.  What's morally wrong to me may seem perfectly acceptable behaviour to you (e.g. entering box junctions when your exit is not clear).  Evil is subjective, but there are probably a few basic tenets on which we could agree: evil as malicious behaviour, with the intention of wrongdoing or harm.  So, let's take that as our basic definition for now.

Measuring this is the next step - and seemingly even more difficult.  We tried Googling it (!), and came up with several highly amusing 'How evil are you?' style quizzes, which seemed to involve lots of questions about saving cats from burning buildings and stealing from your grandmother.  Clearly, these are not questions we can ask everyone who steps into the office, so we're going for a combination of  more subjective techniques (personal views on the general evilness of behaviour in our office) and a 'saliency' measure (i.e. do people notice the poster? do they comment on it?  or do they just glance at it shiftily while they speak...yes we've had that already).

Obviously this experiment will not stand up to academic scrutiny, but it's fun to see the reactions.  One interesting aspect of the phrase 'Don't Be Evil' is the negative imperative it uses.  My old boss used to tell a story about the power of negative language; I don't know if it's true or modern myth, but apparently just before Chris Waddle took his penalty at the 1990 World Cup, England manager Bobby Robson said to him 'don't miss!'.  Waddle promptly sent the ball into row Z and England's world cup hopes were history.  My ex-boss believed that negatives in language are sometimes filtered out by our brains, and that we hear, and do, the opposite when told not to do something.  With this theory in mind, we would perhaps expect to see an increase in evil behaviour in our office, and the logical next step might be to suggest that Google's mission may actually be encouraging its employees to 'Be Evil'.

Ok, enough of the conspiracy theories - I'm not totally convinced by this argument, but I have an open mind and will keep you posted on the results of our little experiment (if I've not gone over to the dark side of course). 

Oh, and Google - how about positively re-framing your mission statement?

Be good?

The next office experiment beckons...

It's a Mixed Up, Mashed Up World. Lady Gaga, Marketing Genius

Lady Gaga is a music-industry phenomenon.  Her rise from backroom songwriter to global superstar has been both swift and dramatic and she is now one of the most-wanted acts in the world. So how did she do it, and why do people go gaga over Gaga?

It's a personal view, but I believe Lady Gaga could be one of the greatest marketing projects of the 21st century.  Why?  Well let's take a look at the component parts of the Gaga brand:

1.  The Music.  
This is what it's all about, right? The music has to be good?  Well, Lady Gaga's music is unlikely to win a Mercury Prize, but it's popular, it's poppy, and most of all it's familiar.  The similarities between her songs and those of some of the most popular artists of the last few decades have been commented on at length.  Consumers liked that stuff before - so they're likely to like it again.  Gaga has created a sound that is inclusive and accessible; this maximises her market.

2. The Look.

Source: Domain Barnyard*

The music industry is obsessed with image, and so is Gaga.  Not conventionally beautiful (by the exacting standards the industry normally applies to its young female stars), Gaga had to create something that would  differentiate her from the crowd of skinny blond ballad belters.  So, she has whipped up a dramatic persona, constructed from a composite of her influencers (Bowie, Madonna, Mercury etc.) that is designed to both shock and intrigue.  Her face is disguised by heavy make-up, headpieces and dramatic hairstyles, and her clothing has become an art project for designers and artists from around the world (the dress made of raw meat, anyone?).  She is a walking, talking, writhing, art gallery and advertising billboard.


3.  The Performance.
The elaborate stage sets and dramatic performances Gaga creates on stage are carefully constructed to shock and create a spectacle.  In fact 'spectacle' is at the heart of what she does.  Creating a hyper-real performance that is so bad it's good is a hugely successful tactic, because we are always wondering what will happen next.  Gaga has tapped into the fact that the music industry is no longer just a music industry; it's a fully integrated 'entertainment' industry and the balance between the music and the performance as the 'product' has shifted.  The music is less important to the pop audience than it was.  The whole package of music, image, and most importantly the performance (and the experience that goes with it) are where consumers perceive the value.

4.  The Attitude.
By cultivating an aura of detachment or otherness, and being rude or diva-ish to interviewers she is perceived as mysterious and temperamental 'artiste'.  Whether this is true or not, it is the result of carefully choreographed and constructed PR onslaught that has the press continually wanting more.  Gaga is able to command media coverage because she knows what the press want, and what they will write about.

So, there you have it, the Gaga 'product' de-constructed.   Gaga has captured the Zeitgeist - the insatiable appetite for sensation, and is providing it in spades.  Brand Gaga is giving consumers exactly what they want from their superstars, and making a fortune in the process.  That's what I call good marketing.

Lady Gaga, I take my (not particularly elaborate) hat off to you.  You are a marketing genius.

*Under Creative Commons licence

CAP Code - to doff or not to doff, that is the question

I've just been working on my latest column for the South Wales Evening Post, and as part of my research have done a quick straw poll of some of the small and micro-businesses I work with to find out how much they know about the CAP code.

Not a lot is the short (and somewhat worrying) answer.

So if you think the CAP code is some form of head-wear etiquette you may need to read this...

Earlier this year the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the self regulating body of the UK's advertising industry, gained new powers as part of its online remit.  Not only does its Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP - yes, this is where the cap comes into it) code apply to online and offline advertising, but it also applies to the marketing communications messages you publish on your company web site and on any non-paid online media such as social networking sites (like Twitter and Facebook) over which you have control.

This has huge implications for businesses as it means your web site and social media communications need to adhere to the same strict standards in terms of claims made about product benefits, environmental performance etc as all mainstream advertising.

The code applies to any communications that are directly related to the promotion of goods and services for sale, so it does not apply to things like press releases, but it does apply to the general information about your products and services on your web pages.  There are detailed sections within the code on key areas such as claims about health and beauty benefits and advertising aimed at the young and vulnerable, but the key principles are that advertisers need to make sure they are not making statements that could be considered misleading or making claims not backed up by suitable evidence.

This lack of awareness about the changes is particularly likely to affect small businesses who may not be working with agencies who would be aware of the new rules.  So, if you are a UK business owner and you have a web site and/or use other forms of online media to promote your goods and services I'd recommend a web site and communications review to ensure you are compliant with the code, as any complaints made against you could, if upheld, result in one or more of a range of sanctions from the ASA.

You can find out more about the CAP code here.

The Peregrine and the Pigeon: The paradox of control (and our attempts to achieve it)

Peregrine falcons are stunning creatures - the fastest birds in the sky, and consummate hunters.  They are, however, very rare (the RSPB estimates just 1042 breeding pairs in the UK, mostly in the north and west of the country, including my home patch - Pembrokeshire).

Knowing where Peregrines nest is a privilege and an honour with a high level of responsibility attached.  Why?  Because Peregrines are rare, precious and under threat from humans who will stop at nothing to kill them (despite the fact that the birds are afforded the highest level of legal protection possible through Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981)). Why would humans want to kill these wonderful animals?  Well, amongst other reasons, it's because Peregrines kill pigeons.  Now I know what you're thinking, pigeons are extremely common (and thought of by many as vermin), why would that be a problem? Well to you and I it might not, but to the pigeon fancier, the Peregrine is the ultimate airborne threat to their valuable birds.

So how can just a few thousand falcons across the whole of the UK really present a threat to racing pigeons?  And why would pigeon fanciers go to such lengths to kill them?  The reasons are social and economic.  Racing pigeons can be extremely valuable because they can make their owners lots of money - and because value is placed upon them by the people involved in the sport.  Just as top flight football players are valued, bought and sold on the basis of their performance, so are pigeons. Now I'm sure that the vast majority of pigeon racers would never consider taking such action, but unfortunately there are a small minority who actively seek out and try to kill Peregrines or prevent them from breeding by destroying their eggs.*

What does this have to do with business?  Well, I see these attempts to control a small and widely dispersed population as futile attempts to gain control over something which is uncontrollable and at the mercy of chance.  Putting so much effort into something for which you cannot guarantee a result or reward is something that managers who are intent on maintaining control above all else often seem bent on doing.  They attempt to micro-manage or waste effort planning for events which are so unlikely they may never happen.

Forward planning can be very useful, and trying to maintain control by sticking to the plan may make you feel better, but times change and a single chance happening (an accident on the M1, or a freak weather event for example) could change everything for your business.  You can't control the weather or your competitors' actions any more than you can control whether your pigeon happens to be in the same airspace as a hungry Peregrine. Herein lies the paradox of control; we want it, but the more things we try to control the further we get from being 'present' in our business, and able to react to opportunities and threats as they arise.

So, no matter what your pigeons, possessions, or plans are worth, consider this: sometimes it's better to be aware of the possibilities and how you might react to them, but to accept that you cannot control everything, and just get on with doing the best job you can.

Oh, and don't kill Peregrines (ever).


Sources:
*Data on Peregrines and the threats to them is from the RSPB: http://www.rspb.org.uk

Why the Happiness Project makes me sad...

Today's news is full of the admirable endeavours of a group who promote an approach to becoming happier that they believe will dramatically improve our sense of well-being.  Of course we all want to be happy, but is spending time trying to be happy by following a prescribed regime of random acts of kindness and meditation really going to get you there?

For me this seems an obvious reaction to a secular, or more specifically a post-religious society.  Those who cannot rationalise traditional religious beliefs still seek meaning in their lives and in doing so are drawn to alternatives that promise the same comfort. Even the methods (service to others, contemplation) are consistent with the approaches and teachings of many of the major religions.

What I find sad is that the volume of attention and interest this project is gaining suggests that we are all unhappy. Is this the case?  Or could it be that we don't recognise happiness when we are living it because we're too busy being happy to think about it?  It bothers me that happiness is seen as a goal not an experience; always in the future.  If you have to think about happiness as something you move towards, how can you experience it in the here and now?

For me, one of the the key factors that affects our perceptions of our own happiness is comparison with others.  Our society is now such that we have a view (even if just through the media) of how the other half live.  We are encouraged to 'aspire' to be more successful, beautiful or rich.  If there's always someone in your sights who has more of these things than you, and you are told often enough that the things they have will make you happy, it would be unsurprising if you became conditioned to believe it.

Don't get me wrong, I commend the happiness project for its rejection of materialism, but I'm not sure it's going to solve the problem of self consciousness.  In my view we need to forget about trying to be happy and get on with it.   Neither existential guilt nor an accumulation of wealth and status will make you happy.  Forgetting what everyone else is doing and being present in every moment of your life just might.

For all my preaching I also have to admit my hypocrisy. In reality, it's something I am very bad at.  So, to snap me out of my ennui I keep a small clipping from a magazine on my noticeboard that reminds me when I need to wake up and live my life.  It's a sublime quotation from The Nice and the Good by Iris Murdoch, and I can't say it any better, so I'll let Iris have the last word:

'Happiness is a matter of one's most ordinary everyday mode of consciousness being busy and lively and unconcerned with self.  To be damned is for one's everyday mode of consciousness to be unremitting agonising preoccupation with self'

What's in your house? Time to declutter your online life

This weekend I've been spring cleaning.  Sorting through all the clutter, and getting rid of all the things I really don't need around me.  Whenever I do this I think of this wonderfully pithy quotation from the poet and Arts & Crafts pioneer,  William Morris:

“Have nothing in your house that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful”

I try to live by this, but it's not easy, particularly in a world where we not only have the physical clutter that accumulates to deal with - but also a whole new class of clutter.  The endless onslaught of information that builds in the inboxes, twitter feeds and timelines of our online lives.

If you're at home, or in your office, take a look around.  If you followed Morris's precept is there anything you would get rid of?*

Now think about your online life - what value are you getting from the emails, tweets, status updates?  Is it time for a declutter?

What if we re-wrote Morris's statement for our online lives:

'Have nothing in your online life you do not know to be __________ or believe to be ___________.'

What words would you use to fill in the gaps?  Useful? Entertaining? Social? Effective?  Efficient? Productive? Innovative? Creative? Interesting? Amusing?  The words you put in those gaps will depend on your approach to the web.  Try it.  Work out what's important to you online. You might surprise yourself.

On this basis, is there anything you need to get rid of?  Do you need to follow all those people on Twitter?  Do you read any of those email newsletters you've subscribed to?  is the breadth of your networks preventing your from really connecting with important people?  Is the good stuff getting buried amongst the rants of those with an axe to grind?

I'm planning to apply my version of the Morris principle to my online life over the next month. I'll let you know how I get on...


*Whether Morris intended this to apply to people is unclear, although I think it has its merits...