Those Gentle Romans

Jack Feuer has a really amusing commentary on recent commentary (on recent commentary) about the impact of television on young people. You can access it here.

With all the hue and cry about the impact of television on today's youth, it's refreshing to read a counter-perspective. Television isn't killing people, people are doing that on their own -- and have been for millenia. As he points out (tongue firmly in cheek):

"Without television, life was a golden age where nobody ever hurt anybody and everybody loved flowers, even the boys. I particularly miss the life-affirming Spartans, the gentle Romans, and the forgiving Puritans . . . Then TV came and screwed it all up. Our poor, innocent youth, done in by that malevolent box--without which they would undoubtedly all gather on a mountaintop, hold hands and sing about carbonated sugar water. "

OK, granted -- he's expressing the "anti-TV" position from an extreme point of view. But the underlying point here is sound. It's quite possible that TV (and video games and movies and [fill in the your favorite entertainment device here] actually REFLECT our existing violent tendencies as opposed to merely driving them.

I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in between. That said, it's hard to expect video game manufacturers and the like to eschew violence when there's so much in real to draw from. Contrary to what Oscar Wilde might have said, art does often imitate life.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not a fan of violence on television. That's why I rarely watch the news. That's worse than anything a television producer or video game manufacturer could come up with.

Ready for 2010

Alan Cohen of Initiative Innovations and Entertainment has a really interesting, funny and scary column in today's MediaPost. Entitled "The Futurist: Living the Virutal Life" the article (positioned as an the online diary of a 16 year old in 2010) gives us a peak into the connected world.

The article gives little clues throughout as to what businesses and consumers will need to know to get ready. For example"I only have enough time to interact with a couple communities for brands I love." Hmmm, sounds like businesses need to cater to the powerful 1%. "I love viedoing crazy stuff like that and uploading it wirelessly in real time to my site." Hmmm, sounds like even more consumer generated content coming our way. "... I also get "viral" points [toward a new snowboard] that are worth two regular points to spread the word about Burton's snowflake foundation. Charity is cool ..." Hmm, sounds like some charities have figure out how to use this web 2.0 stuff to increase donations.

In reading through this piece, I'm pretty sure I'm not ready for 2010. I'm not even sure what some of the words mean. But I know I have to get ready if I'm going to stay competitive -- what about you?

Penguins worth $400 million?

Anyone noticed the crush of penguin movies we've had lately? There's been Happy Feet, March of the Penguins, and some other one whose name I can't remember but that appears to be about a surfing penguin and his friend who is a chicken -- really, you can't make this stuff up.

Maybe that's why Sony and News Corps are considering paying up to $400 million for Club Penguin, an online world where the tween set interacts with each other through penguin avatars. Or it could be because these online worlds might just be "next big thing" in ongoing efforts to capture the hearts and minds of consumers.

Online worlds offer some attractive benefits to anyone seeking to market a product or service. First of all, they're pretty niche -- if you want to market something to tech-savvy 8 to 12 year olds (which feels like probably ALL 8 to 12 year olds), Club Penguin is the place to do it. Second, online worlds offer a gaming and interactive environment. In the new "engagist" culture, people don't want to be advertised at -- they want to be part of the brand development experience. Online worlds are uniquely suited to providing that kind of experience.

Other virtual worlds that are drawing attention (according to a recent article in Business Week) include Webkinz.com, RuneScape.com and Neopets.com. What's most of these worlds have in common is the fact that they appeal to 9 to 17 year olds, a coveted up and coming demographic with advertisers.

Come to think of it, if 9 to 17 year olds are so focused on online worlds, I wonder what they'll be like in 5 years when they hit the working world -- perhaps you should wonder about that as well!

Politics and Web 2.0

In just another demonstration of the connection between politics and engagism on the web, Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave the keynote address at the 2007 Personal Democracy Forum. He commented extensively on how the Internet is (spoiler alert) changing the face of American politics (shocking, I know).

A key component of the discussion was whether the "connected world" is always a good thing, with Thomas Friedman, who joined the conversation with Schmidt, noting that when the MySpace generation starts getting involved in politics, there will be much more information (and pictures) available on them -- not all of it flattering. As Friedman put it ""George Bush never could've been elected president if he'd been at Yale now and there'd been cell phone cameras around."

Schmidt suggested that tomorrow's leaders will likely be more careful in their activities today, knowing that cameras and media attention abound. However to me the more interesting question there is whether the "engagist" generation will have a more forgiving perspective on the exploits of political leaders. As more and more people experience the consequences of less-that stellar online decisions, will they be more forgiving of others that have those same experiences?

It's certainly possible. In fact, perhaps the surfeit of negative information on candidates might lead to an end of negative campaigning. We can only hope.

More information on the keynote address here.

Razoo

A friend just turned me on to Razoo, a niche social networking site where users can put out information about their cause and encourage others to join in. It's in beta version now, but should be available for prime time soon. Causes on the site range from stopping animal expirmentation to reducing personal energy consumption to getting more people to bike to work.

The leaders of the various causes have posted simple things people can do to promote the cause. The "Moooutloud" cause (encouraging compassion for animals by going vegan), for example, encourages people to watch an online clip called the "meatrix." I'm not telling you to do that. It's a little gross...

There's also, of course, opportunities for members of the community to raise money for their cause and/or contribute to other worthy causes. 'Cause that's what makes the world go around, right?

This is just another great (and encouraging) example of how people are using technology to engage in the issues that matter most to them. Remember that next time someone tells you the Internet is isolating :)

Marketing to Yourself

You know how irritating it is to be on the receiving end of all those marketing messages? E-mails, television ads, banner ads, print ads, etc. etc.

Well, you may have no one to blame but yourself. The LA Times has an interesting story titled "Advertising's new reality: Consumers now market to themselves," which notes that successful advertising firms have found new and improved ways to get you, yes You, to do their advertising for them.

From Cadillac owners taking pictures of themselves with their cars to the consumer-developed Doritos advertising campaign, we are all taking our favorite brands and promoting them to our friends, neighbors and perfect strangers.

One really interesting example is the "willitblend" site, where consumers are encouraged to provide their own videos of interesting things being blended -- from baseballs to light bulbs to "real" things, like smoothies. Of course, the site makes it clear that no one should really try to blend a baseball by themselves at home -- that's just something that happens in the BlendTec lab. When you click on the site, you're presented with options for things you can try at home and things you really shouldn't try at home.

Yeah right -- how much do you want to bet that the "do not try this at home" link is clicked far more often than the "try this at home" link?

At any rate, the key point here is that savvy advertisers and their clients understand that consumers want to engage in brand development and promotion. Maybe they want to be involved for the wrong reasons (self-promotion for example), but they want to be involved. So let's let them!

Back from Five Days at Jazz Fest...

See, I do listen to live music. I also downloaded to my iPod some of the acts I particularly enjoyed so I can re-experience jazz fest at the time and place of my choosing.

The Fest really stepped it up this year in terms of integrating the live show with technology. The website featured a running headines leading up to the Fest (headlines during the Fest would have been an interesting idea as well).

There was also a new "live recordings" tent, where one could immediately purchase recordings of particularly compelling shows immediately after they finished. Or, much like at a conference, you could attend one of the 10 or so acts going on at a given time and buy the recording of another. In fact, if you want to purchase the recording of Steely Dan's set (which I highly recommend), you still can at the site.

And I was highly amused (and somewhat alarmed) by the webcam at the Fais Do Do stage (for the uninitiated, that's the stage featuring Cajun / Zydeco / Louisiana style music). Considering some of the shenanigans going on at the Fais Do Do stage, I'm not sure it should have been broadcast.

The point is, you didn't even have to physically be there to enjoy the wonder that is Jazz Fest. And considering the rain and mud on Friday (6 inches in two hours) as well as the hordes of really drunk and sunburned people, there may have been some advantages to not being there.

The only problem is that they still haven't figured out how to deliver virtual Spinach and Artichoke Casserole or Bread Pudding. Once they've figured that out, I will forever experience Jazz Fest from the safety of my couch.

Technology versus Leisure?

In "Technology Transforming the Leisure World," CNN reporter Taylor Gandossy explores the idea that technology is causing us to "segment" our leisure time more.

Those quoted in the article seem to suggest that technology has limited both the time for leisure as well as its quality, which is almost universally defined as doing things with other people. As evidence, they trot out the tried and true "Bowling Alone" argument that the decrease in face-to-face interaction is one factor behind all the ills of society. The article asks us, for example, to "think about the social impact of having to go to the symphony to hear classical music and interacting with others ... Now with CDs and iPods, you can listen to Bach all the time at home ... but also without the human interaction."

OK, that kind of ticks me off. First of all, when I'm at the Symphony (and yes, I do go), I don't want to be "interacting" with others. I frown on people talking during the concert. If isolation and the downfall of society are the fees I have to pay for listening to my music in peace, then I'm all for it.

But seriously, what I think many people (including Putnam) are missing is the fact that much of the interaction that they believe is missing is actually taking place in a new way. Yes, we may not go to the country club every week to visit with a few dozen of our closest friends any more. But we may visit our MySpace page to interact with hundreds of people all over the world.

Just because we don't necessarily "cook for our families" as much as we used to (yes, that was a real quote from the article) doesn't mean we've had a reduction in leisure time or that we're "engaging" less in the world around us. It could simply be an indication that we don't WANT to cook (or perhaps that's just me.) In fact, many people would see less cooking at home and more dining out as a net increase in leisure and communal interaction. Frankly, I'll see more people in a nice dinner out than I will sitting at home over pasta with my husband.

I think what the article does capture is the idea that people are becoming more choosy in their leisure time -- they want to spend their free time doing what they want to do, when they want to do it. Sometimes that means sitting at home listening in solitary confinement to their iPod, but sometimes it means interacting in a much larger way with the outside world.

What's key to remember is it's their choice -- or, I guess I mean OUR choice. I think I'll turn off the BBerry tonight. Don't try to e-mail me. I'll be listening to Bach.