We often talk about how “high” and “low” culture, once two distinct things, have increasingly become intertwined. Wether it’s a pop star singing with a full symphony orchestra, or a fashion house doing a collaboration with a sneaker company, high and low have been coming together with a greater frequency over the last 25 years, and certainly since the start of the 21st century.

But what I think is also interesting, and maybe more recently has been gathering momentum, is another type of collapsing, this time from what I would call Back to Front.

There was a time when professional and consumers were two distinct entities. Sure, a doctor, advertising exec or lawyer was also a consumer, but those were two discreet parts of her identity.  But those distinctions seem to be breaking down quite a bit. Let me give you some examples:

• Trucks and tools that are marketed as  ”Professional Grade.”
• “Clinical Strength” personal care items.

I don’t recall my father needing “clinical strength” antiperspirant. But it’s not just the tools of the profession, it’s the professions themselves.  Think you could be a good General Manager of a sports team? Fifty years ago that meant arguing over a few drinks in a bar over who the local team should trade for in the off-season. Now, after pouring over reams of data, you build your own fantasy team. Think you could be a Hollywood mogul? Great, play the Hollywood Stock Exchange game.  Want to be a network programmer? Great, go dive into TV By the Numbers and give it a shot.

Walking around Manhattan the last few weeks, I’ve seen a lot of posters like these:

There is another one, I can’t remember the cable network right now, but the copy even jokes that you should watch the network, even if you don’t know what an upfront is. Yes, it is that time of year, and these ads will be gone in a few weeks, but the fact that these are no  longer confined to the pages of Variety and Hollywood Reporter is interesting.

Another example? Sephora has partnered with Pantone to create a new cosmetics line. How many people even knew what Pantone was a few years ago, other than people in design, house painting or publishing?

When everyone has the means of production, we’re now all looking for, expecting really, access to the tools of the trade. When you have this sort of back to front collapsing, combined with the collapsing of the high and the low, you get another aspect of the Cultural Singularity. Here now is a different kind of divide. Some people thrive in this new environment, where the rules have been effectively thrown out the window and the barriers have been removed. Others are completely overwhelmed, paralyzed by the seeming confusion brought about by this collapsing. “If everyone can do my job, or have access to my tools, then what, or who, am I?”

How does a Film/TV critic at The New York Times grapple with this: Style in The Wire is a 36-minute film that breaks down the brilliant HBO show to breathtaking levels of detail and erudition. Or how about this 20-minute masterpiece called In The Cut: The Dark Knight, a critical look at director Christopher Nolan’s choices during one critical scene in the film. When amateurs can produce criticism of this level, what do I need the professional critic for? For that matter, what do I need The New York Times for? And that’s why you see institutions clinging to tradition. They can’t handle the Cultural Singularity.  Can you?

The perfect use for most tweets?

Last week I noted the launch of PSFK’s new print publication. This week, two other ‘digital to analog’ items caught my eye. First up is sh*tter. A service that will put your Twitter feed on a roll of toilet paper. HuffPo has the story. This is a great example of McLuhan’s ‘the medium is the message.”  Your tweets in book form, or on a quilt, even on Kleenex, carry a completely different message than on toilet paper. Take it a step further, and your or my tweets on toilet paper is different than say, @shitmydadsays on toilet paper. That would have a poetic quality to it. 

I think this is important to think about. How does the medium affect the message is more relevant than ever as social media, in all its forms, pushes more and more messages at us. Even within social media itself, does sending a message via Facebook give it different meaning than sending via Twitter or Google+? Does sending a tweet via your laptop mean something different than if you are sending it from your mobile phone?

Somewhat more interesting is Type Breaker, from Len Kendall. Len’s planning on, “us[ing]my Remington Model S fully restored typewriter to punch out a short humorous letter to you. It will be based on your twitter feed and will be customized to you based on your thoughts and items shared. Then I’ll mail you the letter…in the mail. You remember the mail don’t you?” 

An interesting idea and one I wanted to know more about, so I got in touch with Len to ask him a couple of questions:

Rick Liebling: McLuhan famously said, “The medium is the message [Foreshadow alert].” So stripping away the content for a minute, how does the medium of a letter, book, magazine, etc. compare, or surpass, the digital medium?

Len Kendall: It’s all about focusing the content consumption experience. A connected device is one that constantly taunts the user with something else. Something that they’re missing that they could be digesting right now. As much as technology can make our ageless stories more visually stunning, deeper in content, or social, there’s always the reminder that the same benefits are waiting for us in the next piece of content. I don’t want to argue that tangible channels prevent us entirely from distractions, (after-all we all have our smartphones next to us at all times) but they do at least remove some of the magnets that divert us so easily in the digital space.

RL: This project requires you to use a typewriter. How does the “equipment” (typewriter v. keyboard) effect the medium AND the message?

LK: Mediums evolve based on society’s needs as well as the opportunities (utilities) that technology reveal. Anachronistic mediums generally don’t captivate our time anymore because of the time it takes to create or consume content within those venues. Where they’re seeing the greatest resurgence today is when they’re used in tandem with digital, or in ways that differ from the original intended design. With Typebreaker, I’m using a typerwriter to slow the frenetic pace of interaction on twitter. People tweet, other people respond within a few minutes, and the conversation is quickly forgotten on both sides. By typing a “long-form” response to my subscriber’s twitter feeds, I’m forcing myself to have a deeper experience with their status updates and spend more time going into archives of their thoughts. By typing a letter on a typewriter, on paper, and then mailing it, I’m taking unusual actions that I hope encourages, a least for a few instances, my subscribers to actually read my comments and reflect back on their own thoughts from the past that yielded my responses.

I’ve signed up for Type Breaker (you can here for just $5 a month) in lieu of a Kickstarter project this week. Check out the previous Kickstarter projects we’ve already supported this year.

Len’s project also reminded me of the recent Twitter by Post project from Giles Turnbull. In both cases the ephemeral nature of Twitter is being subverted and given a weight one can only get from a physical output. It will be interesting to see if these projects portend a larger trend towards choosing mediums that put a greater value on permanence.

If these sorts of questions intrigue you and you are in NYC, DC or Boston, you should check out AETHER, hosted by Orangutan Swing. On April 12th I’ll be the moderator the NYC edition, which is described as a roundtable on the conduit that conveys ideas between people. In other words, how does the format, the channel, even the tools of content creation effect the ways in which we receive and perceive that content.  All very McLuhan-esque. The event will feature Ben Popken, Michael Neff, Andrew Marshall, Dan Blank and Scott McDowell, all of whom you can learn about here. AETHER, which is free, will be held in Bryant Park. I hope you’ll come check it out, should be thought-provoking and somewhat different from the usual industry events. Register for tickets here.

Full disclosure: I haven’t read The Hunger Games books and I haven’t seen the movie either (it comes out in two days). That being said, allow me to put forth some thoughts. I hope you’ll read this and where appropriate, educate me.

The Hunger Games Takes Aim At Society

This morning I read Deadspin’s Grierson & Leitch review of The Hunger Games movie. The review is kicked off with the following admission/caveat:

I feel I need to say this out front about The Hunger Games, since I’d never read the young adult book and wasn’t quite sure what I was in for: This movie has a lot of on-screen child murders.

This gave me pause. I have a 13-year old son who has read the books. I’m not by nature someone who thinks that difficult subject matter should be avoided or banned. But now I started thinking about this a bit more and while I’m not concerned about the subject matter per se, I am concerned about how it is being marketed.

The title of the piece perfectly sums up my thoughts: “Watch Teens Get Snuffed In A Sick Dystopia Where People Like Watching Teens Get Snuffed!”

Right. So, here’s the cultural distinction we here in 2012 are making: The idea of a world where kids are pitted against each other in a battle to the literal death – for the pleasure of others – is sick and twisted. But a movie in 2012 that depicts said world? I smell franchise! In fact, let’s – as the ads implore – “experience it in IMAX.”

‘But Rick, you’re being hypocritical, you listen to Public Enemy and Jay-Z, watch you’ve gushed over The Wire. They all glorify violence in one way or another. Take a look at this scene from The Wire in which two “young’ uns” kill another (NSFW language)

So, how is that different from The Hunger Games? Well, for starters The Wire was broadcast on HBO and was clearly marketed as a show for adults. The Hunger Games is a ‘young adult’ series aimed at, well, young adults.  There were no fun, online activities for The Wire like there are for The Hunger Games. No opportunities to make your own avatar or transmedia experience. The Wire made you sick to your stomach, The Hunger Games is fun for the whole family.

Second, The Wire was set in as close a creation to real life as “Hollywood” has ever gotten. The Hunger Games, set in a fictional

The Hunks From That Movie Where Kids Kill Kids! Yeah!

universe, is “off the hook” I guess? It’s a fantasy world, this could never happen, so don’t worry about it. Wouldn’t many hip hop artists who have been vilified argue the same thing? That they are merely entertainers, creators of fictional characters? Let’s not even go down this path actually, because now it’s a very short trip to wondering why a movie that shows child murders and if filled primarily (completely?) with white characters is just fine and is in fact a big blockbuster.  Same exact movie with all black characters? Let’s not even go there.

On Facebook, Bryan Castaneda commented, “Look how outraged and aghast people were at the Kony video, a fairly close real-life parallel.” How can we completely disassociate the real-life from “entertainement” so easily?

Check out the Entertainment Weekly cover to the right. “Men of The Hunger Games” sounds like the kind of cover line you’d expect from Cosmopolitan. Is that the right tone for a film with this subject matter? I don’t recall a “Men of Death Row Records” cover story, or “Hottest Serial Killers” story in Time.

The Hunger Games has been compared to Battle Royale and Lord of the Flies and they do have similar subject matter. But Battle Royale was the equivalent of a hard-R horror movie and Lord of the Flies is taught as social commentary in schools. The Hunger Games is PG-13. Kids killing kids only warrants a PG-13?

Again, I fully acknowledge to having little to no knowledge of the material, but what redeeming features does The Hunger Games have that could only be taught through the depiction of kids killing kids?  And even if that is ok, why is it ok in a mainstream film?

Please, I’m asking for honest feedback here. What am I missing?

You could see it coming. The big budget Disney Blockbuster John Carter was not going to work.  The reasons were myriad, some more critical than others, and taken in total it’s quickly clear why this movie is going to end up costing a fortune.

Start with the source material.  The character was introduced 100 years ago by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The public’s perception and understanding of life on Mars, where the action takes place, was very different then from what it is now. Who knew anything about Mars back then? The very notion of science fiction was still in its infancy. But today? Well, there is reason Avatar wasn’t set on Mars.

But on the other end of the spectrum, the source material is also very much geared to a certain audience: Mature adult males.  Look at the great artwork of Frank Frazetta and how he depicted John Carter:

It’s important to understand the impact that this artwork has on the John Carter legacy. If you grew up in the last 25 years, John Carter means nothing to you. But if you are between 35-55 John Carter is the artwork of Frank Frazetta. The two are inseparable. But there is no way Disney is going to make that movie. Listen to how Burroughs describes the lead female character, Dejah Thoris:

She was as destitute of clothes as the green Martians who accompanied her; indeed, save for her highly wrought ornaments she was entirely naked, nor could any apparel have enhanced the beauty of her perfect and symmetrical figure. 

That’s the picture above.  Here’s how she appears in the movie:

You can say it’s a small point, or that it doesn’t matter, but it does. When you mess with the source material, you lose the core audience that is going to champion your movie. And when the source material has absolutely no relevance or meaning to anyone under 30 (or female), well you’re headed for trouble.

Ok, but that is what it is. Sometimes you have to tweak the source material. It’s happened before and movies have still been successful. So, let’s jump to the trailer debacle, which has been well chronicled here, here and here. I won’t force you to sit through any of the three official trailers, nor the fan made one that was probably better than all of them.  The point is, they couldn’t articulate the story through a trailer, so nobody cared, or understood, what the Hell was going on.  Science fiction stories written 100 years ago don’t translate well to modern movies. The audience is too sophisticated.

But if you really want to know why John Carter bombed, this Los Angeles Times story lays it out, although not perhaps in the way they imagined. The article explains that the combination of director and executives in charge with this project were in over their heads.  That might be true, or maybe not. But here are the telling lines for me from this piece:

“The worst thing that can happen to a movie is the marketing team changes midstream,” said Peter Sealey, marketing strategist and former marketing president at Columbia Pictures. “It’s disheartening for the filmmakers, for the talent. They lose belief in the film.”

The worst thing is a change in marketing teams? That’s worse than hiring the wrong actors, director or writers?  Then there’s this:

…it’s not the “Star Wars” or ”Star Trek” the studio was hoping, nor even the “Indiana Jones on Mars” that Stanton told Disney he hoped to make. The status of any “John Carter” sequels or theme park attractions is unclear.

Indiana Jones on Mars? Sequels and theme park attractions? That’s why movies like this (or just about any other ‘blockbuster’) suck. They are viewed as franchise vehicles or cross-promotional, money-spinning opportunities.  I’m not opposed to those things by the way, but when they are the raison d’etre, well all you’re going to get is a steaming turd.

Working here in New York, in the marketing industry, it’s easy to get caught up in the “cooler than thou” vibe. Moleskine journals, Warby Parker glasses and hanging out at the Ace Hotel. Of course, it’s not just the striving for hipness, it’s also the rolling of the eyes over what happens in the rest of the country.

It can be hard to remember that what happens in Manhattan not only represents just one part of our culture, but in fact a very small part. So it was with interest that I read the story of Marilyn Hagerty, the restaurant critic for the Grand Forks (ND) Herald. The octagenarian recently became a media sensation because she reviewed the new Olive Garden restaurant. Oooh, isn’t that funny, reviewing an Olive Garden! Why on Earth would you review an Olive Garden? They are all the same, crappy. Or maybe the reaction – the thousands of tweets, views, comments, etc. were more patronizing than snobbish. How quaint that this little old lady thinks an Olive Garden is worth reviewing, isn’t that cute!

Marilyn Hegarty - Voice of the people

But guess what? For the vast majority of people in this country, Olive Garden is a really nice night out.  I’m sure some McSweeney’s loving hipster in Brooklyn is secretly wishing he had done the same review, only drenched with irony. And somewhere a would-be columnist for The Onion is cursing the fact she can no longer write a joke review of the Olive Garden. But understanding that Hegarty represents and speaks for a huge swath of people is important and something most marketers based in New York don’t get to experience first hand. Even when they do pop in to St. Louis or Kansas City or Omaha they are probably in the nicest hotel in town, eating at the choicest downtown gastro pub.

Hegarty was interviewed by CBS This Morning (video here) and I found myself caught in the same trap. “Ha! These anchors are clueless,” I found myself saying. “They said, ‘viral!’ How two years ago.” I thought. Then I realized that there understanding of social media and how things are shared, while perhaps not as sophisticated as someone who talks about it for a living, is probably more tuned in to how the vast majority of people understand it.

If, as marketers, we are seeking core human truths with which to connect with people, we’d do well to read Hegarty’s review, which included the following:

The place is impressive. It’s fashioned in Tuscan farmhouse style with a welcoming entryway. There is seating for those who are waiting.

The chicken Alfredo ($10.95) was warm and comforting on a cold day. The portion was generous. My server was ready with Parmesan cheese.

As I ate, I noticed the vases and planters with permanent flower displays on the ledges. There are several dining areas with arched doorways. And there is a fireplace that adds warmth to the decor. 

Nothing clever here. No witty jabs. Just an honest, simple appraisal. I bet the people of Grand Forks find this type of information extremely useful. Most people don’t care about Zagat’s, let alone Michelin stars. They want exactly what Hegarty describes – a pleasant ambiance and comfortable food.

ABC has two upcoming mid-season replacement shows they’d like you to watch. Personally I think the chances of that happening, at least on an on-going basis, are unlikely. ABC’s Head of Programming is doubling down on faux shock value by having not one, but two programs that have the word ‘bitch’ in the title. Or at least almost in the title.

GCB - I give it 8 episodes.

Premiering this Sunday, March 4 is GCB (Good Christian Bitches), then Don’t Trust the B— in Apt. 23 begins airing on April 11.

These shows both appear to be so hopelessly rooted in the broadcast network paradigm that it’s almost not worth dissecting them. But let’s do that anyway. First GCB:

The show is not an original, but based on a book. That’s not necessarily bad, but adapting a book for a TV show tells me that it’s unlikely they’ll take full advantage of the transmedia and digital opportunities that come from an original idea (see ABC’s last scripted drama hit, Lost).

A quick view of a teaser trailer tells me this show is derivative of the ABC’s Desperate Housewives:

The name of the show is meant to intentionally cause controversy, but who are we kidding? ABC will cave to interest groups who protest once a sponsor loses its nerve.

The star of the show appears to be Kristen Chenowith. Talented, multi-dimensional performer, but not someone people are going to clear their schedule for.

So, a been there, done that show, with a B-List star that thumbs its nose at a vocal minority while bringing nothing new to the evening soap genre?  Maybe it will make it to the end of May, but only because ABC doesn’t have something better.

The sitcom Don’t trust the B—… is marketed as “a hilarious, contemporary female Odd Couple surrounded by an outrageous ensemble cast.” Purely from a marketing perspective that line is a disaster. Telling me the show is “hilarious” really tells me the show will be full of horrible jokes, mostly of an inappropriate sexual nature.  Comparing the show to The Odd Couple is putting impossible to achieve expectations on it, and noting the “outrageous” ensemble cast is code for, “we threw in a bunch of Kramer knock-offs.” Let’s take a look:

Yeah.

Then for good measure they add  in the James van der Beek meta gimmick, something ABC did unsuccessfully more than a dozen years ago with Jennifer Grey in It’s Like, You Know.

Here’s the real problem for both of these shows – cable television. Twenty-five years ago shows like these would probably last a

Apt 23 - 6 episodes, tops.

couple of years, but now the average TV viewer has far too many choices of content of the highest quality. A decade of shows like Dexter, The Wire, The Sopranos, The Shield, Monk, Sex and the City, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Nip/Tuck, Damages, Californication, Game of Thrones and many others have raised the bar beyond anything broadcast networks can hope to reach. Yes, there is the occasional exception, mostly sitcoms – Modern Family, 30 Rock, The Office – but in general the audience has too much good stuff to choose from to sit around and watch a second rate version of a show they got tired of after season two.

I’m glad I’m not a network program chief. I have absolutely no idea how they dig themselves out of the current situation they find themselves in. The only future I see for them is as a distributor of reality shows/contests and sports and awards show programming. Last year as an exercise I created my own seven day prime time lineup of shows I had access to (Hulu, Netflix, on demand, HBO Go, you name it).  I chose only two shows that were on the networks.

Or maybe there is a future for scripted shows on network TV.  If there is, these two new offerings from ABC are not it.