If a product is artificially manufactured to sell . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amelia G

I think that, as a society, it would behoove us to reward the person who genuinely had a Phd over the person who dishonestly claims to have invented electricity. If it is more rewarding to lie than to achieve, we will slow the progress of human achievement.

I don't think there is anything wrong with liking an author a bit better for looking how we'd want them to, but I do think it is messed up when authors start hiring stand-ins to facilitate this. If a book on tape says "by Elmore Leonard" and "read by Samuel L. Jackson" then credit is being given everywhere, but, if Elmore Leonard is expected to pretend to have Samuel L. Jackson's amazing delivery or Samuel L. Jackson is expected to pretend to have Elmore Leonard's amazing turn of phrase, that is a lie which hurts both the tellers and the receivers.

If a pharmaceutical company claims a drug is going to do something, as a society, we damn well expect it will or there is hell to pay.

If Woolite wants to claim it is more gentle on clothing than Tide, as a society, we've set up safeguards so they better have some independent testing which bears out this claim.

If, as a society, we try to ward off lies for profit in most sectors, why do we drop our guard and shrug our shoulders when it comes to what we think of our fellow man and ourselves?

---

Why do we? I believe that we are falling apart as a society. I take no joy in the observations I am making. I wish we did celebrate Ph.Ds, Physicians, great artists etc. As a whole, we do not. We want to watch Parris Hilton fuck some chump.

Would it behoove us? Yes. Will we do it? Not unless some fundamental changes are made. There would have to be some form of regulation. Pharmaceuticals and cleaning products are subject to the FDA and other consumer protections via govt and private organizations. Beyond that, you'd have to ask the public why they make the choices they do. I do not understand it.

OEC

I don't see what's wrong with wanting to see Paris Hilton have sex. I don't think I say to myself, well, I'd respect a great artist but I watched an heiress give a blowjob instead.

I think the point is that we as a culture should reject the outright lies we are being told.

And we should perhaps have better terminology for identifying these sorts fraudulent claims. People should be able to appreciate Avril Lavigne for the talents she has, but she shouldn't have to say she's Sid Viscous, especially if she doesn't even know who the Sex Pistols were. An alt site should not be allowed to put a totally fabricated back story out there along with straight up lies about their ownership etc, without getting called on it. Jenna Jamison should not be allowed to be put out there in so many arenas as the example of empowered female ownership, when in reality that's a gross misrepresentation of the truth. All of these business entities have perfectly respectable real attributes that could be used for marketing, but instead they choose to simply lie. That just strikes me as wrong, and I think we need better terms to communicate that sort of misrepresentation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForrestBlack

I don't see what's wrong with wanting to see Paris Hilton have sex. I don't think I say to myself, well, I'd respect a great artist but I watched an heiress give a blowjob instead.

I think the point is that we as a culture should reject the outright lies we are being told.

---

Fair enough. I am projecting my own (non)-preferences a bit. Do you believe civil society is capable of rejecting the lies at this point?

OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneEyedCat

Fair enough. I am projecting my own (non)-preferences a bit. Do you believe civil society is capable of rejecting the lies at this point?

OEC

---

I don't know about civil society, but I know that we as a culture have to be capable of having some respect for the truth, for right and wrong. We are not totally powerless in the face of media. If we can still hold Milli Vanili accountable, why wouldn't we be able to make that same determination on our own without MTV putting the words in our mouths?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForrestBlack

I don't know about civil society, but I know that we as a culture have to be capable of having some respect for the truth, for right and wrong. We are not totally powerless in the face of media. If we can still hold Milli Vanili accountable, why wouldn't we be able to make that same determination on our own without MTV putting the words in our mouths?

---

I think we are capable of it. Will we though? I'm not too sure about that. What do you mean by our culture? Do we have a unified culture? By all means, you should call people on it. I don't buy into the absolute media power either, I believe it is both consumer and corporate driven.

OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneEyedCat

I think we are capable of it. Will we though? I'm not too sure about that. What do you mean by our culture? Do we have a unified culture? By all means, you should call people on it. I don't buy into the absolute media power either, I believe it is both consumer and corporate driven.

OEC

---

I think far more products are falsely draped in the 'independent' 'grassroots' 'DIY' counterculture affiliated packaging these days than in other arenas and I do feel that the natives have some responsibility to reject the intrusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForrestBlack

I think far more products are falsely draped in the 'independent' 'grassroots' 'DIY' counterculture affiliated packaging these days than in other arenas and I do feel that the natives have some responsibility to reject the intrusion.

---

I absolutely agree. If I can be of service in this area, let me know.

OEC

I guess we just disagree, because I do see things in terms of those absolutes. let's look at the case of a sucessfull busines owner named Bob. Right from the start he never did a dishonest or unethical thing in the name of business, he just put out the best product that he could, he promoted his business truthfully and because he had such ingenuity people wanted to buy his products and they did. bob became very rich and paid all his workers fairly, gave them health plans and retirement, and they all loved him. He even took it one step forward and gave away all of his share of the profits to charity. sounds like the perfect example of how good capitalism is right?

Well lets take a look at the bigger picture and the realities of the market system. because all resources are finite a resource that is used to one end cannot be used to another, this is the bases of the competitive capitalist system. Because Bob's company dominated the market several companies went bottom up and had to close down, the people that invested in them lost all thier money. Even the companies that managed to do well didn't make billions, they had lay off workers, cut retirement plans and other things that hurt people, because they had to equalize thier margins to stay in business among Bob's company. Should Bob feel bad about this? according to the capitalist system, that's supply and demand, that's just how competition works.

Now do you see my point? it is an inherant unaviodable fact of this system that you cannot have a winner without having a loser. Every dollar made in the name of profit is one that comes at the expense of someone else. So that's why any for profit business cannot truly be a helping one.

Let's go back directly to those pharmacutical companies. the capitalist interprizes have developed a treatment for AIDs. This is seen by pretty much everyone unanimously to be a good thing that is helpfull to mankind. I'm not making this up, this isn't the hyothetical, this is the real world situation as it stands. Because of the introduction of this medicine the spread of AIDS in america has decreased over 40% in the last decade. What many people don't know is that medicines, like all technologies, aren't public domain, they are copyrighted and owned by a firm that is financed by the pharmecutical companies. Remembers that even though thier business is helping people, they are still a business, so thier role as a businees (IE: money maker) goes before thier role as a helper. A lab in India has discovered a way to produce this medicine illegally at a costs of 200 dollars for treatment of a person per year. This is illegal because it is in violation of the ownership of the formula and those companies will not give permission for that lab or anyone else to manufacture thier product. Because people in africa cannot afford to pay the thousands of dollars that this medication costs, the spread of AIDs has increased over 100% in the last decade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

I guess we just disagree, because I do see things in terms of those absolutes. let's look at the case of a sucessfull busines owner named Bob. Right from the start he never did a dishonest or unethical thing in the name of business, he just put out the best product that he could, he promoted his business truthfully and because he had such ingenuity people wanted to buy his products and they did. bob became very rich and paid all his workers fairly, gave them health plans and retirement, and they all loved him. He even took it one step forward and gave away all of his share of the profits to charity. sounds like the perfect example of how good capitalism is right?

Well lets take a look at the bigger picture and the realities of the market system. because all resources are finite a resource that is used to one end cannot be used to another, this is the bases of the competitive capitalist system. Because Bob's company dominated the market several companies went bottom up and had to close down, the people that invested in them lost all thier money. Even the companies that managed to do well didn't make billions, they had lay off workers, cut retirement plans and other things that hurt people, because they had to equalize thier margins to stay in business among Bob's company. Should Bob feel bad about this? according to the capitalist system, that's supply and demand, that's just how competition works.

Now do you see my point? it is an inherant unaviodable fact of this system that you cannot have a winner without having a loser. Every dollar made in the name of profit is one that comes at the expense of someone else. So that's why any for profit business cannot truly be a helping one.

Let's go back directly to those pharmacutical companies. the capitalist interprizes have developed a treatment for AIDs. This is seen by pretty much everyone unanimously to be a good thing that is helpfull to mankind. I'm not making this up, this isn't the hyothetical, this is the real world situation as it stands. Because of the introduction of this medicine the spread of AIDS in america has decreased over 40% in the last decade. What many people don't know is that medicines, like all technologies, aren't public domain, they are copyrighted and owned by a firm that is financed by the pharmecutical companies. Remembers that even though thier business is helping people, they are still a business, so thier role as a businees (IE: money maker) goes before thier role as a helper. A lab in India has discovered a way to produce this medicine illegally at a costs of 200 dollars for treatment of a person per year. This is illegal because it is in violation of the ownership of the formula and those companies will not give permission for that lab or anyone else to manufacture thier product. Because people in africa cannot afford to pay the thousands of dollars that this medication costs, the spread of AIDs has increased over 100% in the last decade.

---

Don't even get me started on how Americans are dying of curable ailments in America, while American companies give deep discounts on the same medications to corrupt foreign governments who tend not to pass those discounts on to the needy in the streets.

Capitalism is not a finite system. I suppose it depends on what Bob sells, but there are huge numbers of products which people tend to buy more than one of. If someone buys a William Gibson book, are they really going to choose not to buy a John Shirley or Bruce Sterling novel, because they, you know, already have a book? On the contrary, the sale of one spurs the sale of another. The exception of course comes in when people treat the system like it is finite. If Metallica jumps up and down like little bitches about how no one who buys a Metallica album should buy a Winger CD, then the system becomes finite. But really someone who buys music is someone who buys music and two specific bands might or might not have consumer overlap, but they are more likely to overlap fan bases with one another than with demographics which do not buy music.

So, truth doesn't matter? So long as they stand to gain anything they are all damned?

well it's just a losing game was my point. Of course there are actions that are positive, and actions that are negative. Some of those are downright abusive. Some companies have absolutley no desire to even help at all. Of course I don't compare Ben and Jerry's to Union Carbide. I think that consumer advocacy is a must. But as we discussed and have discussed, it comes down to what are you as a consumer going to do about it? In the end, it's probably going to not be not too much, because you are just as much a part of the system. For every person that demonstrates against Walmart's tactics, there are 500 people who need to shop where the diapers are chepeast so that they have enough money leftover to feed thier kids.

hm.. I sleep and end up with 300 paragraphs to comment on.. gotta go back to the seratonin injections...

MG's perfectly correct in saying a company exists to make money, and 90% of what they do has that as an end-point, even where the process itself has altruistic aspects. Developing a product for the third world may not make unit margins worth the research, but it'll promote the company and gain leverage with governments eager for more expensive products nobody else does. Giving away music tracks on the web, tying downloads into fast food promo, even running a "win a poster" competition at a gig, they're all because eventually, directly or indirectly, someone will gain a dollar from it. My point is it's not a bad thing, or a good thing, it's the way the world 'is'. Seriously, if something doesn't work for the company and appeal to the public, it never gets done again. The endless marketing and fabrication you're exposed to in a capitalist society is because it damn well works - and it's mutual. My record label screws you over a bench by charging high prices for CDs, releasing stuff overseas you can't get locally and pretending someone was a virgin up to her 50th birthday. You screw it back by downloading pirated copies, trading on eBay and blogging the truth all over the place. We all know it's a game, and we all know it's in our interests for the game to exist.

It's not a single layer game either - many times someone will say something that's reasonably obviously a lie, or breaks the 'brand' slightly, as it steers the game the way they want it to go. Smoke and mirrors all the way - and with the greatest respect to the seething masses who buy records, we've got more mirrors than you.

Amelia - ref Vietnam Vet Voltaire (I'm sure as hell not quoting you quoting me quoting you when we're typing so much!) - my point was referring to your prior aspirational-self-esteem proposal rather than truth issues, should've been more specific I guess. I agree with your reply however, but I guess my stance is "does the lie matter". If you're selling a singer and he can't sing, and you cover it up, then it sure as hell does matter. If you're selling (with respect if you're listening hon) someone who looks good naked but doesn't give interviews on CNN, how much of an impact would it really have if people were deceived about a college education? Would the model feel her image was misrepresented any more than by a quiet pass through noise ninja?

Just to slither back to music/ents, one of the things I've had experience of is 'pp fanmail' - little Sally sends an email to her idol Jackie Snarfberger begging to know something about her favorite food.. and the email of course lands on someone else's desk. Some labels will just ignore all inbounds, some will reply with stock "see the website little child" emails, some will give a personal answer. Of course, a personal answer makes Sally's week. The point is, some labels answer as "the label", admitting the info comes from a fat bloke behind a desk in NYC. Some choose to reply as Jackie 'herself', as they know it'll make the email all the more special. The contents are identical to what she'd have typed herself had she the time, but saying 'on behalf of' ain't as good as saying 'best wishes, Jackie S'. There's deception, it's there to ultimately make a fan happy and try to sell them a CD, but is it wrong?

mG

Supermarkets have much smaller margins than record labels and shrinkage is a big problem for that industry. Even people who normally wouldn't steal will do so when hungry. But that doesn't mean we, as a society, would accept lies about ingredients on the box labels in our grocery stores.

Although I believe in capitalism, I do not believe that the only need human beings have is for profit, so I can't believe that the only motive is profit. There are far more effective ways to make a lot of money than rocking a stadium, yet people still want to do it that way.

In terms of self-esteem, there will always be people who were poorly raised or simply born bad who can't stand to see good things happen to other people. But the current system of presenting people dishonestly makes it much harder for everyone, not just a few bad apples.

It is less fun rocking a stadium if you know for a stone cold fact that what people like about you is completely not the case. If someone helps with email and what they are writing is the case, that is a much more minor thing and not a big picture deception. Ideally, the person who invented electricity should be able to look at Voltaire and appreciate her beauty and style, without having to deal with her trying to take props for their good attributes too i.e. inventing electricity. It is a goofy example, but I think it makes the point.

And what is someone who truly has most of the attributes claimed by an Avril Lavigne supposed to do? Does a pretty and tough girl who truly writes precocious lyrics and good hooks have to claim she also invented guitars and pioneered punk song structure to show the correct amount of exaggeration? The phony back-stories of today are generally lifted from someone. This adds a certain "genuine" feel to the BS. There is a difference between not mentioning someone's sexual preference and crediting person A's accomplishments and background to person B.

well look at avril now, she doesn't dress that way and act like she's tough. when she first came out she was like 16. it could be that she really was into that, had no clue what punk is, but thought that it was cool. and then later outgrew it, showing that she never really had any intrest in being "punk" just in cliche teenage pseudo-rebellion, which has been handed down for decades by mainstream society and will always be socially accpeted because it's a great way to whitewash and discredit any real rebellion.

now as for ashley simpson, I don't believe she ever really had any intrest in being the least bit rock n roll. she knows nothing about it. that was all her marketting strategy to set her apart from her sister. but does that make her a fraud? maybe. maybe not. I personally don't care much for music that isn't written as what i'd call art. However, millions of people just want to hear something that "sounds good" that they can dance to, and don't give a lick about whethere it was produced in a studeo by a paid team of writers and the person singing it is merely the public image, or whether it really comes from the singers heart. Since the singer is giving the people what they want, can you really say that they are being fake about it? I guess in my mind it all comes down to the famous phrase, actions speak louder than words.

That's kinda the point though. If nobody cares a lick, why lie? Why claim your company is run by some hipster young girl, why lie about your band's backstory, why make the claims about being indie/DIY if nobody cares? And if people do actually care enough about those things to make it worth while for large corporate interests to lie about it, then shouldn't the same people also care enough to root out the imposters? Either they care or they don't. Either it matters or it doesn't, but you don't get to change the story once you got busted.

I don't have a problem with commerce and even truly great artists have some days when they are just doing a good job of their craft and not creating art.

It is specifically the consumer desire to believe they are supporting music created solely as art which causes corporate conglomerates to lie to the customer and tell them that their processed cheese wiz product is actually artisan handcrafted.

But when commerce masquerades as art, I think it hurts everyone, even the people getting paid for it.

If Terrell Owens can't take all the credit for his team's success, why is it sportsmanlike for Ashlee "Not Even Good At Lip Sync" Simpson to do so?

i know you guys don't like to slam other's businesses but i'm wondering if you'd point out a company you guys feel is unethical in the way you're criticizing in this thread?

i mean we all know that 'Kill'em'All Corp.' is just trying to make the best, most leathal landmines they can, at a price any third world despot can afford, so that type of 'unethical' business doesn't count... on the other hand corprate double speak might dub these landmines 'unmanned territorial peace insurance markers'.

i don't really think anyone was fooled by Arvil Lame, or whoever, with out specifics it's harder to know exactly what the criticism is.

...and i for one don't see any, and all criticism as 'hating', or necessarily negative. often especially since the '90's i've seen folks use the 'you're just jealous' when they hear a criticism of their shoddy products, implying that the only motivating dissenting viewpoints is bad additude. 'quit being a naysayer, and get with the program' was the type of thing i heard when i worked for the snake oil company. 'a positive additude' i've learned can sometimes be a cover for some serious misbehavior. (such as oh... i don't know, giving girls drugs, promising them business partnerships, using them for sex, and then calling them 'stalkers' when funtime is over, and they need to be nexted...but i am most deffinitly a 'hater' with a bad additude, who shits salty liquid turds on the sunny face of shiney happy people land, so i'm probably motivated by jealousy, instead of outrage...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amelia G

.
In terms of self-esteem, there will always be people who were poorly raised or simply born bad who can't stand to see good things happen to other people. But the current system of presenting people dishonestly makes it much harder for everyone, not just a few bad apples.
.

---

ah, this is what i was ranting about...

...i'm not accusing ya'll of 'shiney happy people syndrome', but some folks will use this to tar their critics when their doing some seriously foul shit.

...of course i was just born bad. a very bad apple indeed.

i do like seeing good things happen to some folks though, but that doesn't mean that some other things don't suck.

Interesting thread.. Didn't have time to read all the comments but my thoughts are we are going to be seeing a lot more stuff like this, and it is especially helped along by the internet.

Just recently some video was going around on youtube making fun of Al Gore, it appeared to have been made by some regular guy.. but was in fact made by some republican PR firm. Most people will not know who was behind it or what the motivations were and will not question it.

People want to believe that an average joe can have a certain point of view and tell the world about it

People want to believe that a teenage girl can become a rockstar all on her own

People want to believe that a woman can make a big impact in the world of porn and actually run things instead of just being the model.

All of these things are of course possible, and that is what makes it so appealing to people who want to capitalize on it. When you are not "the little guy" there is an immediate distrust by a lot of people.. so if a big company can disguise itself as the little guy.. Then tons of people will immediately support it without question.

I think the word for it, sadly, is marketing.
It is becoming the norm, it is becoming accepted, and worst of all.. most people don't know, and once people are hooked on a product or service, don't care once they find out the truth.

Even people who are anti-sweatshop will snort cocaine all night knowing after finding out the human cost of getting it here.

Let's say, hypothetically.. Wal-Mart decides to open a chain of neighborhood Wal-Mart stores.. Called "Friendly-Happy-Neighborhood-Wal-Mart"
One of these goes up in your neighborhood.. and around the same time another store down the street goes up called "Ma's Oldschool Neighborhood Store"
"Ma" is a sweet old lady who always remembers your name, gives you special discounts because she likes you.. although you feel badly accepting beacuse you know it must be hard for her to compete with the low prices at Friendly-Happy-Neighborhood-Wal-Mart down the street. You feel good supporting her store, and you tell all your friends about it, and they tell you that you are a wonderful person for helping that old lady out "Down with Friendly-Happy-Neighborhood-Wal-Mart!!!!!" everyone proclaims. Then after several months you read in your local community Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper that Ma's Oldschool Neighborhood Store is actually owned by Wal-Mart..
Woah.. kinda feels like a punch in the gut to know Ma is just some corporate puppet.. but you know what? You still think she is really sweet, you like shopping at the store.. and you keep shopping there.. besides.. the REAL independant neighborhood store is in another neighborhood, and the prices are too high and the guy who owns it has a lazy eye.

When Rupert Murdoch bought *******, I kept using it...
And teenage girls will keep buying Avril's music...
And plenty of people who find out that their new porn producing feminist role model is actually a man.. will keep on consuming from the same company.

I don't think anything can be done to change it until enough people can be convinced that it is not ok to be accepting of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott

Interesting thread..

I don't think anything can be done to change it until enough people can be convinced that it is not ok to be accepting of it.

---

And that's why it needs a name. People will still buy tickets to a band they called sell-outs, but there should be some shame in their game for disappointing their fans regardless. I don't think this thread is about boycotting everything that isn't 100% honest, but it is about the terminology we might want to develop to accurately describe social and factual fraud in counterculture marketing.

I mean, I've had talented people tell me with all sincerity that they are excited because Tom is starting an independent record label.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForrestBlack

I mean, I've had talented people tell me with all sincerity that they are excited because Tom is starting an independent record label.

---

Ha!

Using the word Faux as a prefix might get the point across.

Faux-punk
Faux-alt
Faux-news

etc...

who's Tom?

yup i smell the all mitey Green Back from here !

all societies have probs with coruption and greed ,but most peeps r in the dark or turn a bind eye to it .till they get burned r just plain pissed off'ed bout it ..
theres no qwik fix.but if they gave a fuck ,and were honest ,every one would benifit and we would be better off ..

and i only see few peeps with clout and money doing any thing to help the world.

Bono and Bill Gates .....

thank god for the ones who really care..

Totally with ya, Scott, except that, although I had an account from early on, I didn't actually start using ******* until it was bought out by FOX. ******* was corporate from go. Intermix was simply a smaller and more easily corrupted by minor influences corporation. Intermix's main products were a social networking system which facilitated middle-aged dudes boning teenagers and also a line of cosmetics purported to help one look younger. Ew.

Intermix was never "indie" and I personally am a lot more comfortable with ******* being opening owned by a megacorp. Of course, there are still people who will tell you how "Tom" is starting a record label because Tom Anderson is down for the little guy.

It may not stay this way, but so far I've found ******* to be a much improved product since the buyout and admission of their corporate nature.

I have no problem buying a corporate product, if it is something I want, but I can't stand being lied to. When everyone seemed to believe that ******* was being run by some young guy named Tom coding by himself in his spare bedroom, it just pissed me off. Now that ******* is openly owned by FOX, I support it and Blue Blood has a profile with more than 50,000 friends on it now. FOX is a better company overall than their Intermix subsidiary is, and not just because they are bigger.

I'll drink coffee at Starbucks because I feel like they aren't trying to trick me into thinking they are something they are not, but I'm not comfortable listening to Indie 103.1 in Los Angeles because they fake like they are all independent and grass roots when they are owned by Clear Channel. For those who don't know, radio doesn't get more corporate than Clear Channel.

ah.... i don't have a problem with ************* having been bought out by Fox, as i never used it, and despise murdoch's spawn on their own merits. both Fox, and Clear Channel have had a HUGE impact on media ownership in this country, and are directly responsible for the destruction of small time local tv, and radio stations, and the co-option of the FCC twoards their ends...

...on the other hand i was using tribe.net for a few months before they completely switched out their format to seem more mainstream, and appealing to corprate types who might want to buy them out... in the process 86ing alot of their really interesting 'adults only' features, and totally snubbing alot of the folks who had worked really hard to create interesting communities, and content for their site... they also changed the layout so that it sucked so bad that they had to run a contest to get better icon suggestions from the users (a nice mollifying tatic, since it never changed.) i still go there occasionally since some of the communities are a still interesting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Friendly

...on the other hand i was using tribe.net for a few months before they completely switched out their format to seem more mainstream, and appealing to corprate types who might want to buy them out... in the process 86ing alot of their really interesting 'adults only' features, and totally snubbing alot of the folks who had worked really hard to create interesting communities, and content for their site... they also changed the layout so that it sucked so bad that they had to run a contest to get better icon suggestions from the users (a nice mollifying tatic, since it never changed.) i still go there occasionally since some of the communities are a still interesting...

---

See, that's what we might call a sell-out.

oh deffinitely.

what was really galling about it, was that they had attracted alot of really, ACTUALLY alternative, creative folks, and basically just let them play, and set up their own mini-boards, and such... which did attract alot of weird kinky sexs folk, the San Fransico queer bds&m scene, weird sex actvists from burning man, sex workers, sacred prostitutes... these weren't necessarily what drew me in, but it was nice to know they were there... i mean, i could check out a vegan dating community, a paper mache crafts community, and a 'fuck buddies' community, all in a few minutes.... now a certain section of what made that site popular is gone, or effectively gone...

well, such is life on the net.

huh... just had a thought... it was kind of like 'cyber-gentrification'. the let all the weirdo artists, political activists, and perverts set up a dynamic, creative, interesting online community.... and then came in, and effectively wanted to 'raise the rent' and drive all the 'wrong elements' out. just like you see in 'up and coming' neighborhoods.

not exactly what we're talking about here, kind of like a cultural bait, and switch.

I think bait and switch is close, since afterall, it is false advertising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Friendly

huh... just had a thought... it was kind of like 'cyber-gentrification'. the let all the weirdo artists, political activists, and perverts set up a dynamic, creative, interesting online community.... and then came in, and effectively wanted to 'raise the rent' and drive all the 'wrong elements' out. just like you see in 'up and coming' neighborhoods.

not exactly what we're talking about here, kind of like a cultural bait, and switch.

---

Ooh! Good analogy. I know we were going to start developing terminology in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amelia G

If Terrell Owens can't take all the credit for his team's success, why is it sportsmanlike for Ashlee "Not Even Good At Lip Sync" Simpson to do so?

---

Because it's the way the game plays. Every fan knows from the get-go that the Cowboys are a team of guys on the field made what they are by a few hundred they never see, and everyone watching the game knows who contributed to the score and who hoofed about posing for the skycam.

90% of Ashlee's fans have no idea who produced her record, which studio mastered the DVD, who wrote the lyrics and where the backing group came from - it's easy enough for them to find out (hell, it's on the inlay) but they don't care. It suits them just fine to think of her as 'everything', as they're just consumers of a product. The 10% that are lifestyler fans will know all the details and see past all the mirrors, but frankly they (and folks like us in the biz who get all OCD about it) are the only ones prepared to put 5 minutes into finding out something beyond "enough of the lyrics to sing along in the shower".

Was going through this thread earlier with someone, and as she pointed out it's since MTV that fans stop caring about the details - when it was just a black disc in a store and a few lines in a paper, how 'genuine' they were was more of a priority. Now the artist is a visual brand it's less critical. The Bohemian Rhapsody video came about because they refused to lipsynch on Top of the Pops (at the time you couldn't run some of the vocal effects live so they had no option) - but the video itself was entirely overdubbed so they're still lipsynching. 99% of pop videos overdub and nobody complains about it ("ok, we put the band in a water tank and throw slime at them.. anyone suggest we plug the instruments in? no? ok.. cool..."), yet if the same person lipsynchs on stage it's a federal crime. It's because the fans want different things at different times, and most of the time all they want is 5 minutes of sound and picture without having to think too hard.

mG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mindgames

90% of Ashlee's fans have no idea who produced her record, which studio mastered the DVD, who wrote the lyrics and where the backing group came from - it's easy enough for them to find out (hell, it's on the inlay) but they don't care. It suits them just fine to think of her as 'everything', as they're just consumers of a product. The 10% that are lifestyler fans will know all the details and see past all the mirrors, but frankly they (and folks like us in the biz who get all OCD about it) are the only ones prepared to put 5 minutes into finding out something beyond "enough of the lyrics to sing along in the shower".

---

And a bigger football fan knows more than the layperson about how each of the various coaches are important to their favorite players success, but that still doesn't justify outright lies in all media presentations of that players stats, background, qualifications, etc. Movie fans know that the director has a lot to do with the quality of a film, no matter how good the actors are, but that doesn't make it ok for a huge studio to pretend their latest release was oh so independent. I've seen wholly owned major label subsidiaries pretend to be all indie and spout all sorts of bs independent rhetoric just to pass themselves off as authentic. Knowing more about the team is one thing, having to swallow total fabrications is quite another.