Super Bowl ads—a semi-meta perspective

Let me begin by saying that I love football—college football.  Pro football is fun as long as my fantasy football team is still in the hunt (which didn’t happen this year, but I digress)…

This year’s Super Bowl wasn’t as interesting from an advertising perspective as the synergy-orgy that was Fox’s Super Bowl from two years ago.  Nor was it as glamorous as last year’s 3D fest.  But there still was some interesting points.  The ads that I looked at only occurred during the game (I catalogued the commercials starting after the coin toss, but I stopped during the halftime show, because I figured that The Who’s performance of music that was used on three CBS shows was advertising enough).

• 13 drink commercials (none were healthy drinks—even Lance Armstrong was shilling Michelob Ultra.)  3 were for soda, the rest for beer.
• 7 food commercials (most were Dorito’s, but there were some for candy and Taco Bell); I didn’t include the ones for Denny’s—more on that later.
• 5 movie trailers.
• 11 commercials for internet businesses (specifically companies who advertised with “.com” at the end of their title, but not including Intel or Dockers.com in this number, even though the Dockers commercial urged the public to go to their website for free pants.
• 9 car commercials (most were for the Hyundai Sonota).  This also included the Green Police commercial.
• 26 CBS show promos.  Granted some were short, but still…
• 2 Bridgestone tire commercials
• 2 Sketchers commercials.  These urged the wearer to forego exercise and just wear the shoes to lose weight.  This goes well with all of the bad-for-you food and drinks advertised…
• 3 ads for free Grand Slam breakfast at Denny’s.  I can’t even begin to think about how much money this whole campaign cost Denny’s.  I hope it works out for them—that’s a huge chunk of change.
• During the first part of the 2nd quarter, there were two commercials that focused on pants-less men.  In the same ad block.  I wonder if there was some sort of coordination before hand on that…
• There was a Charger commercial that was narrated by Michael C. Hall.  What’s interesting about this little bit of synergy is that he is Dexter on Showtime (owned by CBS), and the Charger is almost a character on NCIS.  I wonder how much Dodge underwrites NCIS…
• There was a commercial for the census.  With actual stars…  Yeah…
• The Boost Mobile “shuffle” commercial was a meta-play on the old Super Bowl shuffle…  That being said, McMahon hasn’t aged well…
• Tim Tebow advertised for Focus on the Family.  I’m not touching that.  Although, Tim’s going to be lucky if he gets drafted by the Jaguars…
• Homeaway.com had a spoof on National Lampoon’s Vacation.  It broke my heart.

Like I said—nothing too terribly interesting here in the end; everybody knows that the focus of the Super Bowl has moved away from the game, and more on to commercials.  But I think that there is a good reason: in this day of DVR and Tivo, big spectacle, time-based television has got to be a premium.

Publishing in an intro writing course

After finishing reading Classroom Publishing, due out soon from Ooligan Press, I think I have some ideas about how some aspects of the publishing process can help composition theory and writing pedagogy.

Here goes.

Since so much of publishing is concerned with audience (acquisitions, editing, marketing, and design), and in my opinion, the recognition of audience in the writing classroom is so important, framing writing as an act of publishing can instill writers with more direction, confidence, and collaboration.

Direction in that it can help maintain and focus writing goals, challenges, and technique.  Think about how certain topics (I’m thinking of the Description Paper here) seem to only matter to the writer him or herself.  What if the assignment and rubric for the paper focused on how to make connections to an audience of peers?  Suddenly, the student has a *reason* to write.  Descriptions of their computer desk, their favorite poster, whatever, begin to be a thing to be described instead of a symbol.  It in some ways decodes or reframes the subject matter.  Immediately, the student will be able to look at the object as his or her audience would, allowing them to share the details more easily.

This leads naturally into instilling the writer with confidence, which I think is a key component to a mastery of their own voice.  This voice is that which is nameless in some regards (think of the way Peter Elbow tries to describe what voice is), but it can transcend the external audience that dictates what is deemed acceptable.  So here you have this elastic approach to writing where the audience helps shape the writer, who in turn can shape their own writing more effectively, which in turn can shape the audience more, who in turn, well, you get the picture.

As this process unfolds, it becomes apparent that the sharing becomes a collaboration.  This is more than “placing” your position within the context of the ongoing conversation in some field, instead it becomes a living, breathing document that is created from this collaboration between the writer, the writed, and the writee.  Symbiotic in some regards, but symbolic of what writing represents: communication.  The student is no longer talking *to* the reader, but they are engaging in the conversation together.

This has huge potential for the process-oriented classroom in that it reinforces the process portion of the class.  Conversations can end, but the finality of writing ceases, and it is able to be viewed as something that exists apart from time.  When if you think about it, oral communication was extremely temporal.  Someone said something, someone heard it, and then they moved on (yes, I understand that there was a greater emphasis on memory at the time, but the “recall” portion of memory is not as powerful as being able to re-read something exactly as it was written).  With the creation of documents, and using the theories and practices of publishing, I think that it can be gained in the classroom.

Represented Reality

I just started reading some of Baudrillard’s Simulation and Simulacrum, and while I’m not deep enough into it to really formulate some articulated opinions, it has been a springboard for my brain.

Represented reality doesn’t seem to be localized only to virtual realities and digital spaces; Baudrillard seems to be saying that all of our post-industrial world is a representation of reality.  That being said, the map has supplanted the world for all intents and purposes.  The cynic in me can’t differentiate between democracy and the pseudo-democracy that we have here—both “sides” represent the status quo on some level.  There was  a scene in Waking Life where a man said, “Republican?  Democrat?  They’re both sides of the same coin!”  This seemed to resonate with me as I tried to pick out parts of Baudrillard that I could understand.

But, in some regards, is this ability to represent reality something that we have been moving towards forever?  If McLuhan is right, and technology is an extension of our human bodies, then doesn’t it follow that our technological ability to represent reality should only continue to move towards completion?  Not to be too prophetic, but if art imitates life (or vice versa), then the more real that we can represent our reality, the more our art should be developed to imitate the imitation.  That’s how we can have simulated, hyperreal versions of fictions.  World of Warcraft is a hyperreal representation of some unknown fantasy, built on archetypes, and conjoined to this simulated digital community…

The only real things begin to be the simulations of the real things that are no longer relevant, I guess.  Like I said, I’m just starting to wade through this postmodern, existential, lyric book by Baudrillard, and a lot of times I still don’t know exactly what he’s saying some times.

Random thoughts…

Halfway through Culture and Technology right now, and I love it.  It’s a great book, but I’m not quite ready to offer up any sort of official thoughts.

That being said, I have had some realizations.  I never really understood why so many media theory pieces mention art.  There is some sort of thread running through my mind that dismisses art as something not, well, serious.

Even though, on some level, I do appreciate what artists do, and how they contribute to society.  But those were just words.  How do artists help or hinder the world?

I guess it all comes down to the question of if a story, piece of art, or song had ever made the walls of objective reality fade for a time.  If you can think of a time where you lost yourself in some form of artistic expression, then, chances are, you realize this transformative experience.  Reflection, introspection, transpersonal revelation, or increased awareness about some other time or place changes you.

The culmination of your experiences—how much do they define you?  How much do they define a particular society?  Weighty questions indeed…

That being said, I can see how forms of expression (be it graphic art, narrative, cinema) can illustrate certain collective aspects of a given culture or community.  And in how they are interpreted.  On some level, The Matrix films would mean something entirely different to pre-modern cultures (Allegory of the Cave) as opposed to post-industrial cultures (consumerism as control).  Perhaps then, too, the actual act of framing an interpretation should only be viewed insomuch as a specific person or community is able to define (or deconstruct) certain terms…

Like the title of this blog says: “Random thoughts.”

Huxleyan prophecies…

Response to Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death:

I was thoroughly amused by Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, so I think I must have missed the point.  I will however, ponder some thoughts that I’m left with at the end of the reading.

He spoke of the telegraph as the beginning of the destruction of the relevance of information.  While I agree that the people in Maine who were talking to those in Texas may not have had anything necessarily interesting to say at first, I do think that suggesting that this technology is in and of itself evil is its own form of myth-making.

And this seems to be the crux of what I disagreed with often throughout the book: the idea that this technology was in some ways flawed and the root of evil.  Perhaps I’m still too idealistic in my approach to the world (or maybe it’s just that I don’t know enough about it), but I cannot shake the belief that there is no difference between labeling some technological medium as evil and some native populations saying that some plant is evil.  I feel that both of these examples are personifying inanimate objects and making them evil.

That is not to say that I disagreed with Postman’s entire argument.  I think that he does have some particularly strong points.  I did have to wait until the last four pages to really get into the idea of “so, what now?” and I do think that it took too long to get there.

On page 79, he compares the average American’s acceptance of the television similar to Barthes’ idea of myth—we as a people are not fascinated by it, but have integrated it into our lives to the point that it is a true aspect of our lives.  We don’t obsess over its inner-workings, we don’t doubt the reality of the programming, we don’t relegate them to special rooms.  If that mindless acceptance of the thing is part of the problem, then it follows that understanding its impacts, infrastructure, and analyses of the content would be part of the solution, right?

Similarly, on page 97 and 98, Postman launches into an attack on all things on the television as show business.  While I do agree with many of his points, I do think he stops short in his criticism.  Yes, image has replaced content on many programs, but education and media literacy can combat that complacency which fuels the preoccupation with those flashing lights and smooth skin.  Then content can be king, messages can rule, and the fake glitz and glamour can be pushed to the side.

However, by the end, Postman does say that education may not be able to undo the pitfalls of this medium.  He says that education as a band-aid is, “the conventional American solution to all dangerous social problems, and is, of course, based on a naïve and mystical faith in the efficacy of education” (162).  And this is coming from an educator…

In the end, though, I choose to believe that the ability to mindfully interact with any medium (be it book, radio, tv, or internet) empowers one to be able to judge and sort that which is meaningful and important, allowing him or her to navigate through modern culture less like an animal, and more humane.

Or, simply put, that media literacy can in fact help people.

Postman and McLuhan

I just started reading Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, but McLuhan’s “The Medium is the Message” is still in my head.  I came across a line: “Without a medium to create its form, the news of the day does not exist.”

Ok, now I get it.  The medium dictates certain aspects of media messages that can be expressed.  If we were still relying on pre-telegraph forms of communication, we as a people would be hard-pressed to have this form of instant entertainment/journalsim (in fact, I hate to even include the word “journalism” in regards to “news of the day”).  So with one swift sentence, I feel I can come to a little bit better grasp of the implications of McLuhan’s premise.  It isn’t necessarily the message that should always be looked at; instead, the form of media control the aspects and presentation of messages that can be disseminated and looked at.

With twitter and RSS feeds, the instantaneousness of the news is increasingly apparent.  I don’t have to wait until the 6:00 news hour to find out what’s going on with certain events—the medium of the internet (along with the communications infrastructure of broadband, cable, fiber optics, and telephones) now dictates this ever-present, up-to-the-minute barrage of information that I sift through like some sort of hyper indexer.

The implications of this “real-time” communication network are vast, I’m sure, and it’s something that I’ll be thinking about over the next few weeks.  It also raises another red flag for educators about the need for media literacy in my opinion.  Just like ad analysis essays (that I use to teach students advertising assumptions and cultural stereotypes), being able to navigate this blanket of information should be an integral part of education in a free, democratic society.

Without the tools of dissemination and critical inquiry, I feel that students would be more helpless now than in the past to the messages contained in the medium.  I’m still not sold on the conspiracy-esque view that companies are purposefully breeding indifference (but I definitely feel that way somedays), but I do believe that it is a by-product of mindless absorption of media messages.

A mindful and critically-minded student can and should be able to use the tools of the medium for good.  But only if they are made aware of the messages and potential of the medium.

Publishing and Pedagogy

I just started reading the yet-to-be-published Classroom Publishing, due out in March from Ooligan Press.  It is a fantastic book, and as I ponder the implications of Publishing and Pedagogy, I think that it is a perfect fit.

One of the key concepts in a lot of process-based writing programs is the idea that portfolios can demonstrate cumulative knowledge from students.  In my own classroom, I use them as a means to demonstrate the meta-knowledge gained from the quarter.  However, as I read through Classroom Publishing, I think that some of my opinions are starting to change.

The idea that Writing classes can learn a thing or two from Publishing Theory is extremely evident from the constant interaction with “audience”.  In acquisitions, the editorial board thinks about why a certain book would be good for their audience, marketing is completely obsessed with audience, and the editors also take that into consideration when refining language and substance.

In Writing classes, however, the audience is almost always the teacher or team of teachers.  While this has its strengths, I do think that a reconsideration of this might be in order.  What if the audience was a group of the student’s peers?  Framing entries as email correspondences, tweets, or status updates, could go a long way to demystifying the process a little bit.  I’m not suggesting that it would be universally good or beneficial (in fact, at some point, the students should be expected to write for an academic audience); I just think that it’s something to ponder.

More to come later as I finish up the book!

Internet hilarity

If you’ve every worried about the possible future of internet-induced writing habits, look no further than McSweeny’s excellent post on the subject:

HERE

The Medium is the Message is the Medium

In reading McLuhan’s The Medium is the Message article, I had some thoughts come to me that may or may not be accurate.  But they are my thoughts, so that must mean that they are valuable on some level I guess…

Anywho, the main thing that I’m taking away from this is the idea that it is the medium, not the content, that creates the impact for a specific culture. I’m not sure if it’s just all the nonsensical content-centered analysis prevalent in the television media that has infected my brain or what, but it definitely struck me as odd to just look at the impacts of the media in toto.

Don’t get me wrong; I see how it can alter our own collective reality to an extent (although, I resist saying that a mindful person is truly affected—his or her external reality might be affected; not necessarily his or her inner experience of that world), and I think that he has some valuable assertions in the piece.  But I do think that it is dangerously reductionistic in its attempt to say that the use of a medium is subordinate to its meaning and impact.  Media literacy would fall only to the psychologists and sociologists—never to semi-professional semioticians (students of literature).

This is similar in my mind to the change from expressivism to cognitive pedagogy in comp theory.  I think of psychologists running around, timing how long it took people to write, counting their semicolons, and generally missing some of the point.

I also worry that this romantic idea of some perfect past where we didn’t read or have electricity was in some way better than our own trouble-filled present.

I do see, however, how the organization of a society can change based on its forms of interaction and hierarchy; an oral culture needs some sort of local, communal space for group communication. Newer forms of media take away this geographical component (for better or worse), but the ability to collaborate over long distances, communicate with others extremely different from you, and read and study works from those from before birth seem to outweigh some of these concerns. Additionally, as those limits and restrictions are erased, how much of our own identity goes with it?  And is that necessary?  Or is it necessarily bad?

But I might have missed the point altogether.  That seems to always be a possibility.

Griefing or playing?

I recently conducted some research on the nature of grief play and online communities, but the more that I looked into it, the less I was able to have some broad generalization on the subject (which is probably the case whenever learning about anything).

But, the two most interesting cases that I came across were Twixt from City of Heroes and the Warcraft funeral gank.

It could be argued that both of these (which had considerable forum activity and flaming) resulted from playing in character to the extreme.  Originally, I thought that grief play only consisted of shooting one’s teammates in shooters or ganking in PVP matches.  The fascinating part of both of these stories, though, is that they undermined the social aspect of the games.  These aren’t rules that are written by the programmers to prevent some sort of action, instead, they are rules that grew organically from the social interactions from within these worlds.

Twixt, one of the more interesting characters that I’ve come across, could be viewed as a Rorschach-esque character—hellbent on the destruction of villians, irregardless of the social consequences.  Inevitably barred from his guild and frequently threatened online in the forums, David Myers (Twixt’s Ratava) was eventually only left with his own research (the game was no longer fun).

In the case of Serenity Now’s funeral gank, they, too were playing in character to the extreme.  When playing on a PVP server in WoW, you are opening up yourself to being ganked at any given moment.  Did they violate Terms of Service?  Nope.  Did they hack the game?  Nope.  Instead, they performed well within the parameters of the game infrastructure, but violated the unwritten social contract when they slaughtered all of the funeral goers.

So the moral of the story is this: know who you are playing and why.  There are certain assumptions in online communities, unwritten rules, and modes of conduct, and if you violate them, you, too could be labelled a griefer.