Why I Can’t Be Bought

I can’t be bought because I’ll gladly give myself away to interesting and worthwhile opportunities. If you have to pay me to convince me that your opportunity is interesting and worthwhile, then it probably isn’t.

On Racism

A couple of weeks ago, a class discussion led to the topic of racism. It was an emotionally charged situation where everyone was defensive about their experiences and views on racism.

The reason why it was so emotionally charged was because no one was listening to one another. I feel that people seemed threatened when people offer a different view/experience with racism because it calls into question the validity of their own – for example, two black people having completely different experiences or a white person saying that they have experienced racism as well (in the form of reverse racism). So when we start sharing our experiences with racism it becomes a forum where everyone wants to inform/educate everyone else without listening to anyone else.

I know this seems like a hard pill to swallow. Even with my own politics it seems hard because if I give time to a perspective that I think is false, I justify it. But consider perceptions. Perceptions are just as if not more important than reality and they play a big role in how we experience race in this country.

Conversation on SMS

A couple of weeks ago, we were assigned a project to create dialouge about religion. The idea originated from the fact that Americans are woefully ignorant about religion (among many other things) despite the fact that it has a huge impact on our daily lives.

Our group came up with a campaign that was pretty crazy and bordered on being outright offensive.

Classmate: We’re going to hell for this.

Me: We’re already in hell.

Classmate: Well put. Well put indeed.

Technology as a Creative Solution

(I’m working on a piece for this year’s Sixty. This is the first draft. If you’re in the business, please take a look and make sure I’m not making an ass out of myself. Thanks!)

Digital shops large and small seem to struggle with the perception that they are merely suppliers far downstream in the workflow. This happens despite the fact that our industry has preached the good word of silo-breaking collaboration where everyone is responsible and capable of generating the big idea. The problem is interpretation. We still understand things in terms of output so we relate digital shops to websites rather than their true core competency – technology.

People today are uniquely empowered to influence the market however they wish. They buy according to values and beliefs rather than availability and price. And that evolution of purchasing behavior has turned their purchases into a representation of themselves. The point is, people are interested in telling their own stories rather then listening to the brand’s. The big shift in thinking now is not “what can we tell them” anymore, it’s “what can we do for them” a la the concept of brand utility.

Technology works for this situation because it provides value in its communication. It’s a conduit that provides an experience and that experience communicates the intended brand value. It’s like backing up the big talk with action. The Nike Plus idea is perhaps the only example I can reference because accomplishing this is not easy.

It’s no surprise that Madison Avenue struggles to get this kind of perspective, because people who think this way are tucked away in Silicon Valley rolling around in large piles money. In the past two decades, the most brilliant and innovative thinking came from computer nerds working from their bedrooms – Mark Zuckerberg, Kevin Rose, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, etc.

The difference is that advertising people are communicating and developers are creating. Communications can be convoluted because we’re trying influence through changing minds or reframing situations. There are a lot of mental hurdles to overcome for the consumer. However, for technology based solutions, it’s very functional and experiential. You do it and then you get it. It’s a much more natural interaction and it has the potential for mass appeal – whereas for communications advertisers can’t tell two different markets the same thing.

To really know how to use technology, you have to think “backwards”. And it’s “backwards” because in our business, we tend start broadly with abstract concepts and then whittle it down to some sort of idea before it manifests itself into an execution. It is a very inefficient way to solve a problem. To create creative solutions using technology, they ask “What’s the problem?” and then “What can I build/update/tweak to fix it?” Then, based on the experience you build, the concept and idea will reveal itself.

The problem of misusing technology can’t be fixed through just hiring or acquiring digital expertise. In doing so, you’ll continue to treat them as a supplier specializing in a specific media channel. The problem can be fixed through everyone understanding and appreciating technology as little blocks that you can build into anything you want.

What of Beauty?

The first day of class our professor assigned us a semester long project. We’re supposed to look into the following prompt:

What does beauty mean in the world of Botox? What is it worth? Is anyone a natural beauty?

These are a couple of thoughts I have initially, like a brain dump. If you have any thoughts on the prompt, please leave a comment or send me an email. My teammates and I would appreciate it. Since I have trouble rolling big thoughts into one elegant chunk of verbiage, I’ll address each question separately.

The answer to the first question is that because of Botox (and other quick, minimally invasive procedures), beauty is more accessible to those in the middle to upper class. And as time goes by, it may be appropriate to consider that advances in techniques and materials will lead to lower prices. The industry, as I understand it, is a cash cow and because of that we can expect that there will be huge R&D investments going into it.

However, before these procedures, the occurrence of a beautiful woman (I’m assuming this relates to women, and I’ll explain later) was kind of like a lottery pick and it just happened. I think there is casual evidence supporting this when ancient writings attribute beauty of beautiful characteristics to saintliness or godliness. Beauty was celebrated and admired specifically because of its unattainable stature.

Now that everyone can hypothetically become beautiful at will, it doesn’t necessarily devalue to the idea. Beauty is related to biology because part of the criteria we use to choose our significant others is based on looks. Looks somehow give us biological signals that forecast how they will be as a partner and a caregiver. There was a study I referenced a year ago that mentioned how women prefer different types of men for different reasons that speaks to this point.

Botox and the rest of these procedures are minimally evasive and the affects seem subtle and natural, so it’s not as easy to tell to begin with. While there seems to be some stigma about have cosmetic surgery, it’s rapidly become mainstream. In fact, high school girls are getting boob jobs and collagen treatments for graduation gifts. Celebrities have publicly admitted having work done (Patricia Heaton, etc.) to no ill affects on their career. No man will turn down a beautiful woman – either real or natural. I don’t think we’re pretentious enough to start labeling women organic/non organic.

And is anyone a natural beauty? Of course. However, I think the idea of natural beauty will (or already is) starting to veer towards exoticism and ethnic fetishes from those of the 3rd world – African, Asian, Latina, central European and parts of the Middle East. They are natural because the places they come from can’t afford cosmetic surgery – it’s not practical. They are beautiful through the West’s fascination with “the Other”. Europe (and America) uses the idea of the Manifest Destiny to colonize other countries with armies and propaganda, but also with their dicks. This analysis also implies that natural also means “without culture” or that they are not acculturated through American or western norms and values.

Earlier I mentioned I’m looking at beauty from a woman’s perspective rather than a man’s. That’s because I think men set the standards for beauty based on how the socio-political ladder is arranged. I think it’s a very feminist argument, but it’s supported by concepts like the glass ceiling, unequal pay, sex crimes against women, women’s rights issues, the Suffrage movement and other historical struggles.

In the end, what the accessibility of beauty will mean is (if it’s not already happening) rampant homogenization- everyone will look similar, but everyone will be happy with it. It’s like seeing and an increase in the supply of attractive women for men. For women it’s their ability to reach their (or the) ideal of physical perfection.

Also, I think beauty may become a more obvious class issue. There are already studies showing that people in the lower income brackets tend to be more likely to be overweight – an affront to the typical standard of beauty. Also, because of their financial situation, they won’t be able to afford the procedures, so just like Digital Divide and the Income Gap, we can expect to see the Chasm of Hotness (or something more elegant).

I’ve thought of things like Ugly Betty, Suicide Girls and Dove’s Real Beauty campaign, but they feel more like anomalies to me. America’s Top Model and fashion mags are still featuring those types of women. But I want to think about this route because it could be richer territory to explore.

Any thoughts?