I went to the shops this morning ( I have the day off), and on my way back passed a pharmacy with a poster in the window promoting, I don't know, health insurance or something similar; it really wasn't clear (fail #1). Anyway, the poster artwork showed a cartoon character that looked like a cross between Sponge Bob Square Pants (21st century cultural icon that he is) and a chipstick (the 1980s oil-drenched, reconstituted crisp product) walking on a tightrope and proclaiming 'Life is a risky business!'
Clearly in terms of salience, this piece of marketing communication worked as it certainly stood out, but I started to wonder about the copy (as I do) and realised that it was utterly meaningless. If life is a risky business, what does that make death? The cushy, low-risk option? I don't think so. You're either alive or you're not. That's all there is (you may, of course, have other beliefs which are as valid as mine, but I'm going to follow my own instinct here). The riskiness of life is dependent on being alive as its condition. If you die, well what's the risk there? Maybe this polarisation (or this kind of existential analysis) wasn't what the advertiser had in mind...
So, why does this stuff work on consumers? It's a typical example of how phrases that have, in essence, no logical or reasonable sense permeate our language and take on a life of their own. They exist with a meaning beyond the logical interpretation of their words through sheer force of usage. What a wonderful language English is.
To go back to the example in question, I've since Googled 'Life is a risky business' and there are around a quarter of a million instances. Maybe not huge in Google terms, but significant. So maybe there is some meaning in there for some, if not all, people.
My hunch (and it is mere speculation) is that this particular phrase implicitly denies the possibility of death by presenting life as something enduringly risky. Oh, it's a risky business to be in, this life thing, it suggests, as though it were a daily choice we make. Do you ask yourself each morning... 'Do I stay in this life business or maybe try something else? I wonder what that death stuff is like?'
Maybe you do...and excuse me if I get all morbid on you, but it's words like those in this ad that we love because they falsely protect us from acknowledging our mortality. In an increasingly secular and consumer society, we look to businesses for our reassurance and comfort, and what's more comforting than a nice little protective bubble? That's what this company is offering - protection against risk in this life, based on the assumption that you never really have to die anyway.
I'd rather take my chances...
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
Paperless Marketing - Is it time to put print behind us?
Panorama's recent investigation of the impact of direct mail and particularly what they call 'spam mail' on society, the economy and the environment, raised a hugely complex series of issues and questions for politicians, the police and servie providers - but what issues does it raise for marketers?
Clearly there are ethical questions concerning the sending of inappropriate, misleading or downright fraudulent marketing communications (and issues that aren't confined to direct mail I might add, having received a shockingly disingenuous cold call to my mobile from Carphone Warehouse yesterday). These questions need answering, and although there are not necessarily clear boundaries for all aspects of marketing communications activity, we do at least have some legal and self-regulatory measures in place (including codes of practice such as the CAP code, and the professional codes put in place by bodies such as the IDM). However, one area where the marketing profession does not seem to have really grasped the nettle is that of sustainable use of resources in marketing activity, and it's about time we did.
Ethical, sustainable, green, environmentally friendly are all words marketers are encouraged to consider in developing propositions for products and services, but how many of us are really engaging with the ethical questions that the practice of marketing raises? Distracted by the glamour of technology and the buzz of social media in particular, it seems to me that many marketers are ignoring what Al Gore might call the 'Inconvenient Truth' that the marketing practices of many companies ride roughshod over the reduce, reuse, recycle mantra and have seemingly ignored some of the opportunities to rethink the way we 'do' marketing in a world with dwindling resources.
The irony is that the answer to many of our problems may be in the very technology we cleave to in order to avoid thinking about the impact of our consumptive actions, as it offers us new ways of delivering messages to existing and potential customers, new ways of engaging them and interacting with them. So, if you're in anyway involved in marketing or producing print materials of any kind, I urge you to, at the very least, just ask yourself the question: 'Do I need to print everything?' Will your target audience really only interact with what hits their doormat? Or, are there other, less resource-intensive ways to get your message across?
There are, of course, many counter arguments. Is the electricity used to keep our PCs and Macs buzzing any less draining than paper use? How can marketers reconcile sustainability with their responsibility for the efficacy of their activities? As the IDM will tell you, direct mail is undoubtedly effective in the right context, but have we really tried all the other options? The options that are multiplying rapidly online? It takes a brave marketer to ditch what you know works and try something new, but if no-one does it, if no-one takes that risk, that leap, how will we ever know?
I have been known to say that marketing is all about trying things to see what works and what doesn't. Marketing as science? Well no, not exactly; I'm not a fan of the overly analytical approach either, I prefer to go with instinct (but that's another blog..). It's about getting a balance between being agile enough to spot an opportunity and take it (through original thought and quick action), but realistic enough to not throw good money after bad.
So, with that in mind I ask you to take a little step back and look at what you do, how you do it, and the resources you use. Think about the savings you could make; think about the impact on the earth's resources, whatever it takes to get you thinking. Yes, you might have a lot to lose if it all goes wrong, but at least you'll know it was for a good cause ;)
Clearly there are ethical questions concerning the sending of inappropriate, misleading or downright fraudulent marketing communications (and issues that aren't confined to direct mail I might add, having received a shockingly disingenuous cold call to my mobile from Carphone Warehouse yesterday). These questions need answering, and although there are not necessarily clear boundaries for all aspects of marketing communications activity, we do at least have some legal and self-regulatory measures in place (including codes of practice such as the CAP code, and the professional codes put in place by bodies such as the IDM). However, one area where the marketing profession does not seem to have really grasped the nettle is that of sustainable use of resources in marketing activity, and it's about time we did.
Ethical, sustainable, green, environmentally friendly are all words marketers are encouraged to consider in developing propositions for products and services, but how many of us are really engaging with the ethical questions that the practice of marketing raises? Distracted by the glamour of technology and the buzz of social media in particular, it seems to me that many marketers are ignoring what Al Gore might call the 'Inconvenient Truth' that the marketing practices of many companies ride roughshod over the reduce, reuse, recycle mantra and have seemingly ignored some of the opportunities to rethink the way we 'do' marketing in a world with dwindling resources.
The irony is that the answer to many of our problems may be in the very technology we cleave to in order to avoid thinking about the impact of our consumptive actions, as it offers us new ways of delivering messages to existing and potential customers, new ways of engaging them and interacting with them. So, if you're in anyway involved in marketing or producing print materials of any kind, I urge you to, at the very least, just ask yourself the question: 'Do I need to print everything?' Will your target audience really only interact with what hits their doormat? Or, are there other, less resource-intensive ways to get your message across?
There are, of course, many counter arguments. Is the electricity used to keep our PCs and Macs buzzing any less draining than paper use? How can marketers reconcile sustainability with their responsibility for the efficacy of their activities? As the IDM will tell you, direct mail is undoubtedly effective in the right context, but have we really tried all the other options? The options that are multiplying rapidly online? It takes a brave marketer to ditch what you know works and try something new, but if no-one does it, if no-one takes that risk, that leap, how will we ever know?
I have been known to say that marketing is all about trying things to see what works and what doesn't. Marketing as science? Well no, not exactly; I'm not a fan of the overly analytical approach either, I prefer to go with instinct (but that's another blog..). It's about getting a balance between being agile enough to spot an opportunity and take it (through original thought and quick action), but realistic enough to not throw good money after bad.
So, with that in mind I ask you to take a little step back and look at what you do, how you do it, and the resources you use. Think about the savings you could make; think about the impact on the earth's resources, whatever it takes to get you thinking. Yes, you might have a lot to lose if it all goes wrong, but at least you'll know it was for a good cause ;)
Content is Queen, style is the Duchess of Cambridge...
Yesterday it occurred to me to wonder why we use the phrase 'content is king' when we don't have a king? Why not 'content is queen'? I pondered. The nice alliterative 'cuh' still works, and we do have a pretty robust monarch to give the phrase the emphasis intended.
Clearly there's a whole power, gender, culture question that could be pursued here...at length...with much lamentation over the feminist cause etc. but to be honest, I don't think that would get us anywhere, so I'm not going to bother.
Instead I'm going to work with 'content is queen' and, never one to miss the opportunity for a good analogy, I'm going to see where it gets us if we consider our beloved (by some) royal family as a metaphor for the creation of 'good' stuff on the web. Whatever you think about the royal family (and I have to say I'm pretty ambivalent towards them - tourism/charity/morale impact = good, heredity and entitlement = bad; i.e. it's complicated), it's clear that they're on something of a roll at the moment. Weddings, jubilees, sporting prowess and military heroism, it's all a far cry from a decade ago when the queen declared 1992 her 'annus horribilis'.
So, I'm going to guess that you're now wondering what on earth the monarchy has to do with web content? Well, in literal terms of course they are the subject of a great deal of online communication/publication, but they also work quite well as a metaphor for what I believe to be the cornerstones of what makes for really good stuff on the web - content and style. So, if you're sitting comfortably, I'll explain...
Content is Queen
OK, let's start with the queen. She is, after all, the boss of the old firm, and for me, she represents the very core of what the royal family is about and what web content should be about - quality. Credible, single-minded and clear sighted, she's the bedrock of our monarchy, just as really good quality content is what should underpin anything that you publish via the web. Do a good job, put in the effort, be creative, be original. However, good content isn't enough, you also need to package it and get it out there. That's where Kate comes in...
Style is the Duchess of Cambridge
Oh, they've backed the right horse here (to speak the royal lingo, and not, of course to imply any horse-like resemblance in Kate). Kate Middleton is the perfect new royal - beautiful, stylish, and seemingly without airs. She's a natural, and provides a much-needed counterpoint to the queen and her daughter. Appearing on her first tour as a member of the family in Canada, she has presented herself impeccably - right down to the choice of Canada's national colours in her dress, and it's all done with subtlety and charm. Forgive me if this seems gushing, I'm normally a raging cynic, but I really can't help but like her; in fact I defy you to try. And, like it or not, style is important on the web. The way you package up and present your content will determine whether it gets a second glance. Even if you have the most insightful things to say, if it doesn't look inviting no one is going to read it. (Yes, I am aware that I may be standing in a glass house throwing stones here - forgive me.)
So there you go, the royal dream team; but I do wonder if there is something missing from the equation - a communicator. If you create great content, and make it look fantastic, you can post it on the web, but who will see it unless you get out there and shout about it? Success on the social web is as much dependent on the sharing and distribution of content as it is on the content itself. Maybe the royal family don't have to work too hard on this any more. They have a brand everyone wants to know about and the media are happy to spread the message for them; but what about you and I? Who's going to be our royal correspondent? Well, unless we pay an agency to do the legwork for us (at the risk of a lack of authenticity) it's up to us to do our own. So, what do you have to do? Simple. Just connect with people, comment on their content, tweet them, write on their wall, say hello. Just the normal stuff people in a community, we commoners, do...
So, my analogy is broken, but it was good while it lasted. Maybe I should have stuck with the gender thing...
Oh, and thanks to @lizardjones for inspiring this with a query that got my cogs turning.
Clearly there's a whole power, gender, culture question that could be pursued here...at length...with much lamentation over the feminist cause etc. but to be honest, I don't think that would get us anywhere, so I'm not going to bother.
Instead I'm going to work with 'content is queen' and, never one to miss the opportunity for a good analogy, I'm going to see where it gets us if we consider our beloved (by some) royal family as a metaphor for the creation of 'good' stuff on the web. Whatever you think about the royal family (and I have to say I'm pretty ambivalent towards them - tourism/charity/morale impact = good, heredity and entitlement = bad; i.e. it's complicated), it's clear that they're on something of a roll at the moment. Weddings, jubilees, sporting prowess and military heroism, it's all a far cry from a decade ago when the queen declared 1992 her 'annus horribilis'.
So, I'm going to guess that you're now wondering what on earth the monarchy has to do with web content? Well, in literal terms of course they are the subject of a great deal of online communication/publication, but they also work quite well as a metaphor for what I believe to be the cornerstones of what makes for really good stuff on the web - content and style. So, if you're sitting comfortably, I'll explain...
Content is Queen
OK, let's start with the queen. She is, after all, the boss of the old firm, and for me, she represents the very core of what the royal family is about and what web content should be about - quality. Credible, single-minded and clear sighted, she's the bedrock of our monarchy, just as really good quality content is what should underpin anything that you publish via the web. Do a good job, put in the effort, be creative, be original. However, good content isn't enough, you also need to package it and get it out there. That's where Kate comes in...
Style is the Duchess of Cambridge
 |
| I defy you to dislike her...* |
So there you go, the royal dream team; but I do wonder if there is something missing from the equation - a communicator. If you create great content, and make it look fantastic, you can post it on the web, but who will see it unless you get out there and shout about it? Success on the social web is as much dependent on the sharing and distribution of content as it is on the content itself. Maybe the royal family don't have to work too hard on this any more. They have a brand everyone wants to know about and the media are happy to spread the message for them; but what about you and I? Who's going to be our royal correspondent? Well, unless we pay an agency to do the legwork for us (at the risk of a lack of authenticity) it's up to us to do our own. So, what do you have to do? Simple. Just connect with people, comment on their content, tweet them, write on their wall, say hello. Just the normal stuff people in a community, we commoners, do...
So, my analogy is broken, but it was good while it lasted. Maybe I should have stuck with the gender thing...
Oh, and thanks to @lizardjones for inspiring this with a query that got my cogs turning.
* Photo by Niquinho on Flickr under Creative Commons license
Saturday, 25 June 2011
Adventures in Transmedia - because real doesn't exist any more.
Inspired by No Mimes Media's amazing transmedia campaign for The Dark Knight...and the work of Simon Brookes at Portsmouth University on alternate reality games for education, I recently did a little micro-transmedia experiment of my own...
The whole idea of an immersive, crossmedia, semi-real experience as a way of engaging students with learning makes sense to me on so many levels. Engaging students with learning is something it can be pretty difficult to do when you're constrained by the environment in which you are scheduled to teach. For me, that's quite often a lecture theatre which places me centre stage and students seated in tiered rows; trapped for an hour with no means of escape (poor things). So, creating learning experiences that work in a lecture theatre and that are participative and interactive for a large group is something I spend quite a bit of time trying to achieve.
For me, transmedia has amazing potential as a 'teaching and learning strategy' (as the teacher educators would call it). The possibility of creating a narrative that students buy into and participate in in class, and that gets them thinking about topics, solving problems, trying out approaches and gaining experience is a win - win. In my experience, students learn best when they're absorbed in a task, and they love the sense of achievement they get from problem solving.
So, I set about doing a test of what I'm going to call a 'micro-transmedia' experience at a recent internal conference, with an audience of students, faculty and business people, just to give it a go really. What a brilliant experience it was. My story unfolded over the 20 minute session, and the whole room participated in one way or another in solving the problem. After all the preparation, it was like tapping the first piece in one of those amazing domino trails you used to see on Record Breakers (showing my age).
I used a combination of actors (recruited from my colleagues - with much arm twisting and promises of chocolate), found objects (including a borrowed iPad - which I was a little nervous about disappearing...), letters, tweets, YouTube videos and the web. Some of the material can be seen on Twitter here: www.twitter.com/app5isalive and here:
The scenario is designed to introduce a session on IP, and so the narrative was based on an IP theft. It worked really well, and I'm convinced that it will work even better in a 'students only' environment. However, I think these micro-versions need to be used sparingly in order to maintain interest, and indeed this game dramatised a situation for impact. I can see huge potential for longer versions, however, that are embedded in the curriculum and assessment where a more 'realistic' experience is created. The opportunity to provide students with practical experience while reducing risk to businesses, students and the institution is one of the key benefits I see in developing alternate reality environments. For me, this provides the best of both worlds - the real experience of a live project, along with the ability to try, fail, test, and experiment in a safe 'sandbox' environment that you get with traditional computer-based business simulations.
Today's students are engaged in activities that cross the boundaries between reality and fiction at all times: Reality TV, gaming, social media, fashion, music, sports, books, films, theatre; our lives are one big mash-up of constructed semi-realities and personal perceptions of what is real and what is true. This is how many of us live today, in a constant state of tension and negotiation of what is true for us, for others, and in the context of the messages we absorb from these media. It seems only right to engage with this in creating learning experiences that allow our students to try, to test, and to construct their own version of reality...
More about this later, but if there are any educators or marketers out there who want to find out what I did...and what I've got planned next, tweet me @lgsmu.
The whole idea of an immersive, crossmedia, semi-real experience as a way of engaging students with learning makes sense to me on so many levels. Engaging students with learning is something it can be pretty difficult to do when you're constrained by the environment in which you are scheduled to teach. For me, that's quite often a lecture theatre which places me centre stage and students seated in tiered rows; trapped for an hour with no means of escape (poor things). So, creating learning experiences that work in a lecture theatre and that are participative and interactive for a large group is something I spend quite a bit of time trying to achieve.
For me, transmedia has amazing potential as a 'teaching and learning strategy' (as the teacher educators would call it). The possibility of creating a narrative that students buy into and participate in in class, and that gets them thinking about topics, solving problems, trying out approaches and gaining experience is a win - win. In my experience, students learn best when they're absorbed in a task, and they love the sense of achievement they get from problem solving.
So, I set about doing a test of what I'm going to call a 'micro-transmedia' experience at a recent internal conference, with an audience of students, faculty and business people, just to give it a go really. What a brilliant experience it was. My story unfolded over the 20 minute session, and the whole room participated in one way or another in solving the problem. After all the preparation, it was like tapping the first piece in one of those amazing domino trails you used to see on Record Breakers (showing my age).
I used a combination of actors (recruited from my colleagues - with much arm twisting and promises of chocolate), found objects (including a borrowed iPad - which I was a little nervous about disappearing...), letters, tweets, YouTube videos and the web. Some of the material can be seen on Twitter here: www.twitter.com/app5isalive and here:
The scenario is designed to introduce a session on IP, and so the narrative was based on an IP theft. It worked really well, and I'm convinced that it will work even better in a 'students only' environment. However, I think these micro-versions need to be used sparingly in order to maintain interest, and indeed this game dramatised a situation for impact. I can see huge potential for longer versions, however, that are embedded in the curriculum and assessment where a more 'realistic' experience is created. The opportunity to provide students with practical experience while reducing risk to businesses, students and the institution is one of the key benefits I see in developing alternate reality environments. For me, this provides the best of both worlds - the real experience of a live project, along with the ability to try, fail, test, and experiment in a safe 'sandbox' environment that you get with traditional computer-based business simulations.
Today's students are engaged in activities that cross the boundaries between reality and fiction at all times: Reality TV, gaming, social media, fashion, music, sports, books, films, theatre; our lives are one big mash-up of constructed semi-realities and personal perceptions of what is real and what is true. This is how many of us live today, in a constant state of tension and negotiation of what is true for us, for others, and in the context of the messages we absorb from these media. It seems only right to engage with this in creating learning experiences that allow our students to try, to test, and to construct their own version of reality...
More about this later, but if there are any educators or marketers out there who want to find out what I did...and what I've got planned next, tweet me @lgsmu.
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
A relationship with my supermarket? No thanks, I just want some milk.
Relationship marketing has reached something of a saturation point. Organisations large and small have bought into the idea that they need to develop and manage customer relationships - and CRM (along with a plethora of products and services to support it) has become an integral part of the marketing activities of many companies. I'd question, however, whether they are really building relationships? Or is this something of a misnomer...a convenient and cuddly word for the mass customisation of marketing communications?
As a consumer, I don't want a relationship with many of the organisations I buy from. I don't want to be part of their gang. I don't feel a personal affinity to their brand. I just need a product or service that works, that I can afford, and that's in the right place at the right time. I don't think I'm alone in this.
Don't get me wrong - there are brands and parts of organisations with whom I'm happy to engage on a personal level. My favourite supermarket cashier, who always has a smile and a quirky comment about my purchases; the owner of the garage I go to who never patronises me (despite the fact that I am clearly female); the people I exchange messages with on Twitter who work for organisations I buy from. These are human relationships, and they tend to be one-to-one. What CRM systems attempt to deliver is the one-to-one experience, but this is delivered through a many-to-many system, and however sophisticated that system is, it is still not as real.
So, does that mean Customer Relationship Management is not important? No - it just means the 'relationship' part is a bit mixed up. It's a bit of a bunny boiler of a name really...like the person who thinks they're in a relationship with you because you smiled at them once. What we need to accept about CRM is that it is not really about building a relationship with our customers, it's about improving our communications and learning more about our customers so we can keep improving everything we do.
Purveyors of CRM 'systems' want marketers to believe they can use them to build these close 'relationships' when in fact we'd all be better off calling a spade a spade and admitting that they simply enable us to personalise marketing messages, find out more about our customers and manage our communications better. This still has the same benefits, but I'd argue that a change in terminology is less likely to lead the marketer down a false trail in search of the holy grail of brand advocacy in the unlikeliest of places.
The fact is, customers aren't stupid. They know when they are being sent a mass email/sms/mailing. They don't think your large corporation has contacted them personally; they know that you've been filtering your database, and they're unlikely to be getting that warm friendly glow because you remembered their birthday. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing - it just means you need to get it right. You need to send your customers the information they want and need to make the decision to buy from you.
I receive about twenty emails a day from companies who want to sell me something. They are all generated by CRM systems. I open the ones with a subject line that interests me. I click through to the store when the email contains a product/story/offer that interests me. At no point do I think, ooh, I love this company. I think - that content looks useful, interesting, fun; I'll go there.
The take home message here is, use your CM system (I'm removing the 'R') to deliver great content, and your customers will buy, and continue to buy their products and services from you. As someone once said...content is king.
And no thank you, I still don't want a relationship with you Mr Tesco - I just want a pint of milk...
*Image www.thebestmoviereview.com under creative commons licence.
 |
| Katy Perry - Married to the Brand.* |
Don't get me wrong - there are brands and parts of organisations with whom I'm happy to engage on a personal level. My favourite supermarket cashier, who always has a smile and a quirky comment about my purchases; the owner of the garage I go to who never patronises me (despite the fact that I am clearly female); the people I exchange messages with on Twitter who work for organisations I buy from. These are human relationships, and they tend to be one-to-one. What CRM systems attempt to deliver is the one-to-one experience, but this is delivered through a many-to-many system, and however sophisticated that system is, it is still not as real.
So, does that mean Customer Relationship Management is not important? No - it just means the 'relationship' part is a bit mixed up. It's a bit of a bunny boiler of a name really...like the person who thinks they're in a relationship with you because you smiled at them once. What we need to accept about CRM is that it is not really about building a relationship with our customers, it's about improving our communications and learning more about our customers so we can keep improving everything we do.
Purveyors of CRM 'systems' want marketers to believe they can use them to build these close 'relationships' when in fact we'd all be better off calling a spade a spade and admitting that they simply enable us to personalise marketing messages, find out more about our customers and manage our communications better. This still has the same benefits, but I'd argue that a change in terminology is less likely to lead the marketer down a false trail in search of the holy grail of brand advocacy in the unlikeliest of places.
The fact is, customers aren't stupid. They know when they are being sent a mass email/sms/mailing. They don't think your large corporation has contacted them personally; they know that you've been filtering your database, and they're unlikely to be getting that warm friendly glow because you remembered their birthday. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing - it just means you need to get it right. You need to send your customers the information they want and need to make the decision to buy from you.
I receive about twenty emails a day from companies who want to sell me something. They are all generated by CRM systems. I open the ones with a subject line that interests me. I click through to the store when the email contains a product/story/offer that interests me. At no point do I think, ooh, I love this company. I think - that content looks useful, interesting, fun; I'll go there.
The take home message here is, use your CM system (I'm removing the 'R') to deliver great content, and your customers will buy, and continue to buy their products and services from you. As someone once said...content is king.
And no thank you, I still don't want a relationship with you Mr Tesco - I just want a pint of milk...
*Image www.thebestmoviereview.com under creative commons licence.
Saturday, 4 June 2011
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 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.
Thursday, 2 June 2011
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)