If a product is artificially manufactured to sell . . .

[Amelia G]

If a product is artificially manufactured to sell to a group who believe in a particular cause or set of ideals, what would you call that? This is kind of a riff on OEC's thread about selling out. I don't know Avril Lavigne personally, so maybe she started off as a cool chick and then agreed to model for someone else's pop punk starlet concept . . . but I don't think so.

So what do you call something like an Avril Lavigne or a Hot Topic or the altsmut membership site with a fake female figurehead du jour? These are not products created by people with much in the way of values to start off with, but I know how devastated I would have been, if I were 12 or 13 when Avril Lavigne came out and then I found out she wasn't the real deal at all. Heck, I was pretty bummed when I heard that, rather than Jenna Jameson heading up a company, Vivid was able to sell her (and her husband) to Playboy.

So the emotional reaction is much like that one would have to a sell out, but what would you call something that never really existed in the first place like that?

[Buster Friendly]

anybody who doesn't like the freemarket system is just a hater, hatin' on capitalism.

quit hatin' you haters.

...now if you'll pardon me i've got to go over to GOPunk, and whip up some support for joe liberman, since he's now free to admit he's a republican.

[GnArKiLL]

the beautiful thing about it is that 12 and 13 year olds are too stupid to ever know, but then they grow up, but a whole new batch of morons takes their spot, i love america

[GnArKiLL]

oh and btw, youd call that a poser

[ForrestBlack]

anybody who doesn't like the freemarket system is just a hater, hatin' on capitalism.

Obviously, I think you can wholly support a free market capitalist system and still call a snake oil salesmen out for being what they really are. Misleading disingenuous marketing is still wrong, even in a free market. But, there should be terminology for the sorts of folks Amelia is talking about. Not exactly sell outs, but something else.

[drewblood]

an opportunist capitalizing on a fad?

[Amelia G]

an opportunist capitalizing on a fad?

Someone can seize opportunities without going out of their way to be misleading to people about their most deeply held beliefs, so I'd agree that people who do this sort of thing are opportunists, but there is more to it.

Like a politician getting donations from the religious right by pretending to be a good Christian, when really he cheats on his wife, molests his children, laughs at beggars, buys abortions for his many mistresses, and only goes to church if photographers will be there and, even then, not very often.

What would you call that? Definitely an opportunist, but I think there is more wrongness to it than mere opportunism.

[Buster Friendly]

But, there should be terminology for the sorts of folks Amelia is talking about. Not exactly sell outs, but something else.

Carpetbagger has a certain connotation...however it fits the behavior... 'cultural pirates'? i dunno.

i worked for a snakeoil company.... total fuckers. they latched onto other people's ideas, and relentlessly hyped them till they were devoid of all value.

and Amelia, what you're describing isn't a good christian?

[malcolm]

Obviously, I think you can wholly support a free market capitalist system and still call a snake oil salesmen out for being what they really are. Misleading disingenuous marketing is still wrong, even in a free market. But, there should be terminology for the sorts of folks Amelia is talking about. Not exactly sell outs, but something else.

I can think of two that come right off the bat:

1.ripoff artist
2.conman

and yeah, I agree with fb on the free enterprise system. it's like in apache junction there are tons and tons of mom and pop shop type places but half the crap they seel is over priced and shoddy quality yet they sell it cus people think they are suffering cus walmart is down the road and it is not the case

[One Eyed Cat]

If a product is artificially manufactured to sell to a group who believe in a particular cause or set of ideals, what would you call that? This is kind of a riff on OEC's thread about selling out. I don't know Avril Lavigne personally, so maybe she started off as a cool chick and then agreed to model for someone else's pop punk starlet concept . . . but I don't think so.

So what do you call something like an Avril Lavigne or a Hot Topic or the altsmut membership site with a fake female figurehead du jour? These are not products created by people with much in the way of values to start off with, but I know how devastated I would have been, if I were 12 or 13 when Avril Lavigne came out and then I found out she wasn't the real deal at all. Heck, I was pretty bummed when I heard that, rather than Jenna Jameson heading up a company, Vivid was able to sell her (and her husband) to Playboy.

So the emotional reaction is much like that one would have to a sell out, but what would you call something that never really existed in the first place like that?

I am not sure who Avril Lavigne is beyond a vague name recognition.

In terms of Hot Topic, they basically coopted a number of scenes (which were gaining in popularity) and created a system of mass marketing and distribution that smaller companies had a hard time competing with. I'd just call em gutless opportunists. They see only in terms of market demographics and profit margins. In essence, they gut the substance out of something you may have cared about it (and tend to moderate and mainstream certain styles)

The alt.smut site would have a similar dynamic. I don't know what you mean specifically by the female figurehead. Lavigne? Corporations tend to be heartless. I have no doubt Jameson made a truckload of money for Vivid. In the end, she too was just a commodity.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

Someone can seize opportunities without going out of their way to be misleading to people about their most deeply held beliefs, so I'd agree that people who do this sort of thing are opportunists, but there is more to it.

Like a politician getting donations from the religious right by pretending to be a good Christian, when really he cheats on his wife, molests his children, laughs at beggars, buys abortions for his many mistresses, and only goes to church if photographers will be there and, even then, not very often.

What would you call that? Definitely an opportunist, but I think there is more wrongness to it than mere opportunism.

Cultural vampires. Leeches. Yuppies.

OEC

[Amelia G]

I am not sure who Avril Lavigne is beyond a vague name recognition.

In terms of Hot Topic, they basically coopted a number of scenes (which were gaining in popularity) and created a system of mass marketing and distribution that smaller companies had a hard time competing with. I'd just call em opportunists. They see only in terms of market demographics and profit margins. In essence, they gut the substance out of something you may have cared about it (and tend to moderate and mainstream certain styles)

The alt.smut site would have a similar dynamic. I don't know what you mean specifically by the female figurehead. Lavigne? Corporations tend to be heartless. I have no doubt Jameson made a truckload of money for Vivid. In the end, she too was just a commodity.

OEC

Avril Lavigne is a pop act which draws on punk and coffeehouse feminist culture to present a little blonde model-looking girl as this precocious and meaningful artist. In point of fact, it is common knowledge in Los Angeles that the record company hired some of the best songwriters in the biz and just had this teenager sing words which seems so insightful and deep, especially for her age. If I were more of a music industry person, then I might remember all the names of the team that went into creating this, but really top people. At any rate, then they brutally controlled her image, wrote a questionnable back story for her, had some of the best video directors in the biz work with some talented stylists, and, voila, they sold a lot of albums to young girls who believed in what they were being sold. The one time I saw the girl singer out at night, she looked desperately unhappy. She was probably paid well, although I understand her deal involved less than if she were really bringing the whole package to the table, but that seems fair.

But fundamentally the whole package was put together from so many parts that it was a lie. That is the phenomena I am looking for a term for.

When I refer to female figureheads, I am referring to the common porn industry practice of having some chick pretend to be the "publisher" of a magazine or the "founder" of a web site, when in point of fact, she is just a figurehead.

The dictionary definition of figurehead includes: "A person given a position of nominal leadership but having no actual authority . . . a person used as a cover for some questionable activity [syn: front man, front, nominal head, straw man, strawman]"

[One Eyed Cat]

Avril Lavigne is a pop act which draws on punk and coffeehouse feminist culture to present a little blonde model-looking girl as this precocious and meaningful artist. In point of fact, it is common knowledge in Los Angeles that the record company hired some of the best songwriters in the biz and just had this teenager sing words which seems so insightful and deep, especially for her age. If I were more of a music industry person, then I might remember all the names of the team that went into creating this, but really top people. At any rate, then they brutally controlled her image, wrote a questionnable back story for her, had some of the best video directors in the biz work with some talented stylists, and, voila, they sold a lot of albums to young girls who believed in what they were being sold. The one time I saw the girl singer out at night, she looked desperately unhappy. She was probably paid well, although I understand her deal involved less than if she were really bringing the whole package to the table, but that seems fair.

But fundamentally the whole package was put together from so many parts that it was a lie. That is the phenomena I am looking for a term for.

When I refer to female figureheads, I am referring to the common porn industry practice of having some chick pretend to be the "publisher" of a magazine or the "founder" of a web site, when in point of fact, she is just a figurehead.

The dictionary definition of figurehead includes: "A person given a position of nominal leadership but having no actual authority . . . a person used as a cover for some questionable activity [syn: front man, front, nominal head, straw man, strawman]"

oh ok. I would call them scams in both instances. I would just say: You mean the Lavigne scam? ... oh you saw the alt.smut scam (or scheme). You know they're phonier than Milli Vanilli, right? Needs more elaboration, but both are scams.

OEC

[ForrestBlack]

But 'sellout' has a cultural context, much like 'poser'. It is something any given subculture tries to root out in order to maintain it's roots and integrity. The various hip-hop cultures have a lot more great terms for problematic characters, like 'player-haters', etc. I kinda feel like 'scam' doesn't quite capture that aspect, since the people Amelia is talking about tend to be a bit of a cancer within the community they operate in or cater to. In order to identify these parasites, they should be able to be easily classified and rooted out by being exposed for what they are.

[One Eyed Cat]

Hell, you could just call em parasites. (given scene)-parasites.

OEC

[Kidthorazine]

Avril Lavigne is a pop act which draws on punk and coffeehouse feminist culture to present a little blonde model-looking girl as this precocious and meaningful artist. In point of fact, it is common knowledge in Los Angeles that the record company hired some of the best songwriters in the biz and just had this teenager sing words which seems so insightful and deep, especially for her age. If I were more of a music industry person, then I might remember all the names of the team that went into creating this, but really top people. At any rate, then they brutally controlled her image, wrote a questionnable back story for her, had some of the best video directors in the biz work with some talented stylists, and, voila, they sold a lot of albums to young girls who believed in what they were being sold. The one time I saw the girl singer out at night, she looked desperately unhappy. She was probably paid well, although I understand her deal involved less than if she were really bringing the whole package to the table, but that seems fair.

But fundamentally the whole package was put together from so many parts that it was a lie. That is the phenomena I am looking for a term for.

When I refer to female figureheads, I am referring to the common porn industry practice of having some chick pretend to be the "publisher" of a magazine or the "founder" of a web site, when in point of fact, she is just a figurehead.

The dictionary definition of figurehead includes: "A person given a position of nominal leadership but having no actual authority . . . a person used as a cover for some questionable activity [syn: front man, front, nominal head, straw man, strawman]"

In the case of Avril Lavigne she is musically the product of the Matrix Production team (who work with people like Christina Aguilera, Mandy Moore and most recently "Heavy Metal" band Korn) and apparently she actually wrote the music for her last record. But yeah regardless that whole thing is pretty much the lowest of the low in terms of modern sub-cultural rip offs.

I call this whole phenomina "mass media bullshit" some people call it poseurism or whatever, but i think its far beyond that. What lies at the root of this is not only making money but i percieve it as an atack on the DIY ideals of most of the co-opted sub-cultures, by attacking theese they not only increase profits by selling stuff but they attempt to make itr seem ok to rely on some major company to dictate your taste in fashion and music, which expands profit even more.

[Mr Karl]

it's funny I've never heard any of her music, is it any good?

[Kidthorazine]

well its ok i guess if you like formulaic pop music. Actually its pretty good in terms of formulaic pop music because it isnt whiny and it has real instruments.

[malcolm]

while we are n the subject of ripoff artists....anyone remember milly vanilly?they'd fit in this category too right? I mean, they didnt even sing the songs.

[One Eyed Cat]

I'd make a list of these people as you find em. Keep it private for now. But yeah, document it if you give a shit about the scene.

OEC

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

For music I always though bubble gum was a good name for it, but it has lost a lot of it's cutural meaning over the years.

[LoraLie]

"I created Punk for this day and age. Do you see Britney walking around wearing ties and singing punk? Hell no. That's what I do. I'm like a Sid Vicious for a new generation."
Avril Lavigne (Seventeen Magazine, 2002)

People are like, 'Well, she doesn't know the Sex Pistols.' Why would I know that stuff? Look how young I am. That stuff's old, right?"
Avril Lavigne (Entertainment Weekly, 2002)


i later found a magazine article of her saying she never called her self punk, that other people did.

she just makes my head hurt.

& she's married to my favorite bands lead singer.

[LoraLie]

when i first read the title . . . for some reason i read it as
artificially flavored.
i dont know where my head is at today haha

[Amelia G]

"I created Punk for this day and age. Do you see Britney walking around wearing ties and singing punk? Hell no. That's what I do. I'm like a Sid Vicious for a new generation."
Avril Lavigne (Seventeen Magazine, 2002)

People are like, 'Well, she doesn't know the Sex Pistols.' Why would I know that stuff? Look how young I am. That stuff's old, right?"
Avril Lavigne (Entertainment Weekly, 2002)


i later found a magazine article of her saying she never called her self punk, that other people did.

she just makes my head hurt.

& she's married to my favorite bands lead singer.

Wow, those are some priceless quotes. Her hubby reportedly used to pull Blue Blood hotties out of the audience at shows, based on liking their Barely Evil layouts, so I've got a soft spot for him.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Avril Lavigne is a pop act which draws on punk and coffeehouse feminist culture to present a little blonde model-looking girl as this precocious and meaningful artist. In point of fact, it is common knowledge in Los Angeles that the record company hired some of the best songwriters in the biz and just had this teenager sing words which seems so insightful and deep, especially for her age. If I were more of a music industry person, then I might remember all the names of the team that went into creating this, but really top people. At any rate, then they brutally controlled her image, wrote a questionnable back story for her, had some of the best video directors in the biz work with some talented stylists, and, voila, they sold a lot of albums to young girls who believed in what they were being sold. The one time I saw the girl singer out at night, she looked desperately unhappy. She was probably paid well, although I understand her deal involved less than if she were really bringing the whole package to the table, but that seems fair.

She got her start singing country-western pop covers at county fairs in Canada. Somewhere along the lines, it was decided that it would be easier to market her as "punk".

Her songwriting team is known as "The Matrix" and has created hits for Christina Aguleria and Sheena Easton -- PUNK RAWK!!!

[YoungSoulRebel]

... and apparently she actually wrote the music for her last record.

Nope!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avril_l...#Under_My_Skin

"co-writing" basically means she had some kind of input. Maybe it was considerably more input than she put into her last "co-written" album, but I guarantee you that it wasn't much more.

[LoraLie]

Yay for Deryck. hearing that makes me smile. ahh i love sum 41. haha sorry.

i know i'll never understand how those two ended up together being that i dont personally know either of them haha.

i'm actually okay with some of her music. just things i've seen that she has done & said is what makes my stomache turn

[Mindgames]

Oooh, an interesting original question turns into Salem.

I'm not going to get drawn into Avril's brand image - you guys are nice to hang with and nobody's hoofed me out yet, but I'm not about to go all open-season-personal-life on you. Pop may not be your thing, and it ain't mine either, but I'm just a little disappointed she's drawn out so much venom prefaced by "I don't know her but...". On such premises prejudice is based.

All artists have a brand image, and ALL major-selling artists have an image that's partly manufactured. It has to be - everyone has elements of their life that go to make up that brand image, and everyone has elements that they want to stay private. If you started as a 'normal kid' and at 21 suddenly sold 5 million albums and had the press combing your trash, then I'll put any money you want on the fact there's something stupid, embarrassing or just plain icky about your life you don't want the world to know. Labels and identity managers fill in the gaps mainly for sales, but partly to protect the human being they're working for. I've got friends and colleagues whose 'back story' is hiding things that would probably not bother the fans too much, but would ruin their families. A brand identity can't help but be aimed to increase sales and make them fit a certain image - but it's not forced on the artist, it's not there solely to print cash, and having one isn't a sign you 'sold out'. Being Reg Dwight or Alicia Moore is not the same as walking on stage as Pink (or in pink). They're paid to sell records, and those with a polished, acceptable-to-the-fans image are simply good at their jobs. If you're not the person on stage singing (Milli Vanilli... Boney M, etc) then that certainly is frauding your fans - but does it actually matter how many of the 35 lines in a platinum-selling single were written by the artist and how many came from a passing janitor provided they're the ones singing it? You bought it because they can hit a note, the tune sounded good, and a part of you wanted to sleep with them. You're buying into a brand identity with a Pink album just the same as if you're buying a Dr Pepper - it's called capitalism.

Elvis had the best brand image and marketing anyone had seen, and it's got a lot to do with why he got where he did - but do you say he 'sold out to marketing' because he didn't wear a white jumpsuit in gradeschool?

Right - now you can all tell this topic gets me pissy, I'm ducking out before someone throws a bottle at me for talking up the big bad music biznezz. Amelia, my apologies for not answering your original question, but at least I'm on topic!

mG

[Amelia G]

Oooh, an interesting original question turns into Salem.

I'm not going to get drawn into Avril's brand image - you guys are nice to hang with and nobody's hoofed me out yet, but I'm not about to go all open-season-personal-life on you. Pop may not be your thing, and it ain't mine either, but I'm just a little disappointed she's drawn out so much venom prefaced by "I don't know her but...". On such premises prejudice is based.

All artists have a brand image, and ALL major-selling artists have an image that's partly manufactured. It has to be - everyone has elements of their life that go to make up that brand image, and everyone has elements that they want to stay private. If you started as a 'normal kid' and at 21 suddenly sold 5 million albums and had the press combing your trash, then I'll put any money you want on the fact there's something stupid, embarrassing or just plain icky about your life you don't want the world to know. Labels and identity managers fill in the gaps mainly for sales, but partly to protect the human being they're working for. I've got friends and colleagues whose 'back story' is hiding things that would probably not bother the fans too much, but would ruin their families. A brand identity can't help but be aimed to increase sales and make them fit a certain image - but it's not forced on the artist, it's not there solely to print cash, and having one isn't a sign you 'sold out'. Being Reg Dwight or Alicia Moore is not the same as walking on stage as Pink (or in pink). They're paid to sell records, and those with a polished, acceptable-to-the-fans image are simply good at their jobs. If you're not the person on stage singing (Milli Vanilli... Boney M, etc) then that certainly is frauding your fans - but does it actually matter how many of the 35 lines in a platinum-selling single were written by the artist and how many came from a passing janitor provided they're the ones singing it? You bought it because they can hit a note, the tune sounded good, and a part of you wanted to sleep with them. You're buying into a brand identity with a Pink album just the same as if you're buying a Dr Pepper - it's called capitalism.

Elvis had the best brand image and marketing anyone had seen, and it's got a lot to do with why he got where he did - but do you say he 'sold out to marketing' because he didn't wear a white jumpsuit in gradeschool?

Right - now you can all tell this topic gets me pissy, I'm ducking out before someone throws a bottle at me for talking up the big bad music biznezz. Amelia, my apologies for not answering your original question, but at least I'm on topic!

mG

I'm with you on some of this, but I do think there is a point where the process goes beyond marketing into something kinda destructive and wrong. I think there is a difference between a positive or protective spin and lying to the public.

A sixteen-year-old me would have had no idea whether someone was a technically good singer and wouldn't have cared. Sure, some voices are appealing, but the content of the song would have been a big deal to me.

Nothing wrong with Michael J. Fox, but I'm a fan of Jay McInerney for Bright Lights, Big City.

I also think that, in the area of the music industry for example, this sort of presentation to the public puts awful pressure on people. A singer who looks great and can hit the notes will feel terrible for not being able to write a great hook or pick out his or her own clothes. A talented stylist will feel terrible for not being thin or musical. A great songwriter will feel terrible for not being young enough. And so forth. This type of marketing gives the audience the expectation that certain people must contain the superhuman talents of a whole group of extrremely capable people and that is sort of a sucky pressure to put on the world. I think it is where a lot of the self-esteem issues which are so heavily medicated today come from. Someone can be pretty special and still not as special as a team of people can make one person artificially appear to be. Then we end up with celebrity hate coming out of this, where people can't wait for someone famous to have something truly terrible happen to them. And I don't think it ends up being a winning equation for anyone really, at the end of the day.

[Mindgames]

There's been an evolution in the attainability of 'stars' since the 50's, I agree - but it's far from directional. Many more artists have a Jenny-from-the-block slant on their image as it's obvious it engenders more connectivity from fans, but at the same time you're getting a West Coast rapper on Cribs laying about his $50 million mansion and calling his SL500 "mah weekend toy". The image they're selling is success independent of your starting point, the old American dream of "have talent, will go far" - but it's a modern assumption that when you're rich and successful you spend your time fixing all your other faults - before the SL500 gets new alloys, you fix your phat ass and gold-plate your molars.

With 10 people primping your image, you're going to look far more 'perfect' than a normal person, and mostly that's 'beauty' - but we both know that someone with a sexy body and decent face gets more attention than a talented ugly person unless you really get to know them. Nature's a bitch that way. Celebrities and artists have to play on the superficial aspects of image as their fans don't really get to know them. I fully understand how making someone look that good means fans have esteem issues, but it's getting better now than it was in the 70's or 80's when you didn't get in a door unless Farrah Fawcett felt inferior in your presence. For every artist who's middle-level on talent but made millions from a cute smile or butt, there's one that looked normal or had a personal life you'd run a mile from, and made millions from talent. Most are a mixture of both - where would you put Missy Elliott, Kurt Cobain or 50 Cent? Would Prince have gotten the recognition as one of the best multi-instrumentalists on the planet if he'd looked like Jack Black?

And just in case there's someone here not already throwing darts at me, do sites like Blueblood contribute to the attainability gap by marketing photogenic people who (whilst being extremely popular and appealing) probably don't reflect the median body sizes or complexions of our users? I'm 110% behind this place and the 'brand', but what's the difference between promoting with a carefully-chosen shot of Voltaire aimed to appeal to your demographic and the five carefully-chosen images Pink uses in her current video (none of which looks anything like the face she wakes up to)?

Success-envy has always been there, you do it to your neighbor, the one at school who had the best prom date, Tom Cruise for being too damn short for a guy that popular with women, - everyone likes to see it so they know it's achievable then gets instantly annoyed they're not the ones achieving it. I like the quote from Sinatra:-

"They put you on a pedestal so it hurts when you fall."

mG

[Buster Friendly]

as far celeberties being marketed to us- talent is the least important aspect of the deal. i know so many talented people who aren't going anywhere it makes me sick. one of my best friends has written like 6 novels, and at least 5 of them are really fucking good... he just doesn't give a shit about getting the published... would rather drink, and watch porn.... but who fucking cares about celebs, we know they're plastic.

aside from le Hot Topic, what other products/brands/companies seem to have been engineered to market to a specific subculture? wasn't HT an offshoot of the whole Spencer's Gifts chain?

marketting, public relations, and media manipulation are such an integral part of our society, it's hard for me to come up with something right off the top of my head...

although obviously eMpTV, of course is a massive player in the co-option of youth cultures... i remember when 'gangsta rap' first came out... shit, i remember when rap music first came out... it sounds almost unreconizable to me now.

the matrix, and underworld movies, both co-option's of subcultures... both blatantly ripped off from other sources. hollywood is an excellent coopter.

um.... what else?

i like Asia, where an action movie star, can also be a pop music star, and that's perfectly normal... david hasslehoff only sings in germany.

[One Eyed Cat]

I'm with you on some of this, but I do think there is a point where the process goes beyond marketing into something kinda destructive and wrong. I think there is a difference between a positive or protective spin and lying to the public.

A sixteen-year-old me would have had no idea whether someone was a technically good singer and wouldn't have cared. Sure, some voices are appealing, but the content of the song would have been a big deal to me.

Nothing wrong with Michael J. Fox, but I'm a fan of Jay McInerney for Bright Lights, Big City.

I also think that, in the area of the music industry for example, this sort of presentation to the public puts awful pressure on people. A singer who looks great and can hit the notes will feel terrible for not being able to write a great hook or pick out his or her own clothes. A talented stylist will feel terrible for not being thin or musical. A great songwriter will feel terrible for not being young enough. And so forth. This type of marketing gives the audience the expectation that certain people must contain the superhuman talents of a whole group of extrremely capable people and that is sort of a sucky pressure to put on the world. I think it is where a lot of the self-esteem issues which are so heavily medicated today come from. Someone can be pretty special and still not as special as a team of people can make one person artificially appear to be. Then we end up with celebrity hate coming out of this, where people can't wait for someone famous to have something truly terrible happen to them. And I don't think it ends up being a winning equation for anyone really, at the end of the day.

Personally, I think it is the core desire for fame that is the problem. If you have a vicarious public being sold on body type, image etc etc, of course you'll end up with a prozac nation. It goes beyond attainability. Where is this ridiculous desire coming from? If people are that enamored with marketing, ads, and celebrities; we no longer have a country. We, ourselves, are just a brand name "CONSUMER INC". Like mG's quote of Sinatra, we build em up just to break em down. If this quasi-"need" goes unfulfilled, of course they're gonna lash out. I don't say this to knock any artist, I just see a very unhealthy dynamic at work. Will it change? I doubt it.

OEC

[Morning Glory]

first of all what product ISN't artifically manufactured to sell to a group? that's the defintion of a product.

so is your group based on products or something else? If it's based on something else that can't be bought and sold, what do you care about production?

the criticsim of hot topic has always been that they exploited fashion.. which is entirely unfair because it implies that the groups they are marketting to weren't concerned about fashion (read:products) in the first place, which they obviously are and still are today, whethere they have anything to do with hot topic or not. the only valid critisim is that they use inferior quality products and jack up the prices but no one is going to call them on this because it opens themselves up to expose thier own consumerism that drove hot topic's marketting in the first place.

what would I call this? i'd call it doing business, i'd call it capitalism. you say that there is nothing worng with free market capitalism, but the goal has always been about production and most importantly profit, and the market and the product itself has always been secondary. that's why we have outsourcing, cheap labor, cheap goods, poor working conditions etc, etc...

[Amelia G]

There's been an evolution in the attainability of 'stars' since the 50's, I agree - but it's far from directional. Many more artists have a Jenny-from-the-block slant on their image as it's obvious it engenders more connectivity from fans, but at the same time you're getting a West Coast rapper on Cribs laying about his $50 million mansion and calling his SL500 "mah weekend toy". The image they're selling is success independent of your starting point, the old American dream of "have talent, will go far" - but it's a modern assumption that when you're rich and successful you spend your time fixing all your other faults - before the SL500 gets new alloys, you fix your phat ass and gold-plate your molars.

With 10 people primping your image, you're going to look far more 'perfect' than a normal person, and mostly that's 'beauty' - but we both know that someone with a sexy body and decent face gets more attention than a talented ugly person unless you really get to know them. Nature's a bitch that way. Celebrities and artists have to play on the superficial aspects of image as their fans don't really get to know them. I fully understand how making someone look that good means fans have esteem issues, but it's getting better now than it was in the 70's or 80's when you didn't get in a door unless Farrah Fawcett felt inferior in your presence. For every artist who's middle-level on talent but made millions from a cute smile or butt, there's one that looked normal or had a personal life you'd run a mile from, and made millions from talent. Most are a mixture of both - where would you put Missy Elliott, Kurt Cobain or 50 Cent? Would Prince have gotten the recognition as one of the best multi-instrumentalists on the planet if he'd looked like Jack Black?

And just in case there's someone here not already throwing darts at me, do sites like Blueblood contribute to the attainability gap by marketing photogenic people who (whilst being extremely popular and appealing) probably don't reflect the median body sizes or complexions of our users? I'm 110% behind this place and the 'brand', but what's the difference between promoting with a carefully-chosen shot of Voltaire aimed to appeal to your demographic and the five carefully-chosen images Pink uses in her current video (none of which looks anything like the face she wakes up to)?

Success-envy has always been there, you do it to your neighbor, the one at school who had the best prom date, Tom Cruise for being too damn short for a guy that popular with women, - everyone likes to see it so they know it's achievable then gets instantly annoyed they're not the ones achieving it. I like the quote from Sinatra:-

"They put you on a pedestal so it hurts when you fall."

mG

Of course, there will always be player-haters. I don't understand them, but I know they exist. I think their parents brought them up wrong, made them compete with siblings for parental love or something. But I'm not talking about generalized envy.

I think the problematic thing is when something so artificial is presented that the successful and famous person doesn't even get to feel good about it. They can't feel the love because they sense it is aimed at an artificial construct. I think fame used to be a heck of a lot more fun than it is now. Obviously, not perfect or there wouldn't be a Sinatra quote about it, but the brutalization of our celebs seems a lot more extreme just in the last decade even to me.

To use an example from my own experience, if I share a photo of Voltaire and tell people she is fun to drink a beer or a coffee with and that she really owns that punk T-shirt and camo pants, choosing to present those specific details about her could absolutely be seen as a spin to make people like her more. I certainly hope people look at what I present about Voltaire and like her from it.

Don't you think, however, that it would be different, if I made grandiosely false claims about Voltaire to get people to like her, claimed she had a degree in biochemistry, invented dreadlocks, worked on the AIDS vaccine team, had a best-selling visual rock album in Japan, was romantically linked with both Bob Dylan and Vince Vaughn, and is a decorated war veteran? Those are all fine things to be and I'm more than a good enough writer to convince people that at least some of those things are true. But wouldn't that be kinda sucky? Wouldn't that make even Voltaire feel bad for not being Voltaire? Shouldn't it at least be possible for someone as exceptional as Voltaire to be good enough for being who she is? Why should we have the notion that, even someone truly special, couldn't be worthwhile enough without adding a bunch of BS?

Isn't there a big difference between focusing on someone's attractive traits and perhaps hiding their less appealing traits and actually balls-out lying to the world about who that person is and what their impact and accomplishments and role in the world is?

[Amelia G]

first of all what product ISN't artifically manufactured to sell to a group? that's the defintion of a product.

so is your group based on products or something else? If it's based on something else that can't be bought and sold, what do you care about production?

the criticsim of hot topic has always been that they exploited fashion.. which is entirely unfair because it implies that the groups they are marketting to weren't concerned about fashion (read:products) in the first place, which they obviously are and still are today, whethere they have anything to do with hot topic or not. the only valid critisim is that they use inferior quality products and jack up the prices but no one is going to call them on this because it opens themselves up to expose thier own consumerism that drove hot topic's marketting in the first place.

what would I call this? i'd call it doing business, i'd call it capitalism. you say that there is nothing worng with free market capitalism, but the goal has always been about production and most importantly profit, and the market and the product itself has always been secondary. that's why we have outsourcing, cheap labor, cheap goods, poor working conditions etc, etc...

Wouldn't you feel differently about Starbucks selling someone a dependably adequate but unexceptional coffee from a clearly corporate outpost and someone selling mediocre coffee but claiming they are mom and pop and support sustainable agriculture and donate a portion of proceeds to the homeless . . . if really they are secretly backed by a similarly large corporate/business entity and do none of those things? Fundamentally, both things are profit-driven attempts to sell you a coffee, but one is what it is and one is a lie.

[One Eyed Cat]

Everything I see being described is still just aspects of competitive capitalism. If your model has a degree in physics, than mine better have invented electricity. Thorstein Veblen refers to it as invidious comparison.
The public wants the show, the image ... I don't think they seriously care about details like the truth (until they deem it time to knock the celebrity down).

The democratization of media does have the effect mG mentions. It has another perverse effect also:

If more people can attain fame, the actual value of that fame decreases.

Thus, one has to achieve greater and greater distinction to move past the B-list. The celebrity is ultimately a commodity. Naturally, I will want my celebrity to outshine yours. Thus, I will cultivate a better image for my celebrity. You really have to separate the person from the image at this point. The celebrities I know even recognize this. They don't take it seriously.

I recently read The Substance of Style by Postrel. We have reached a point where even authors with a look will trump the ugly author! Do you guys know what I mean? It takes more to distinguish one celeb from the next. In this game, image is everything. It doesn't matter if its true or false.

OEC

[Amelia G]

Everything I see being described is still just aspects of competitive capitalism. If your model has a degree in physics, than mine better have invented electricity. Thorstein Veblen refers to it as invidious comparison.
The public wants the show, the image ... I don't think they seriously care about details like the truth (until they deem it time to knock the celebrity down).

The democratization of media does have the effect mG mentions. It has another perverse effect also:

If more people can attain fame, the actual value of that fame decreases.

Thus, one has to achieve greater and greater distinction to move past the B-list. The celebrity is ultimately a commodity. Naturally, I will want my celebrity to outshine yours. Thus, I will cultivate a better image for my celebrity. You really have to separate the person from the image at this point. The celebrities I know even recognize this. They don't take it seriously.

I recently read The Substance of Style by Postrel. We have reached a point where even authors with a look will trump the ugly author! Do you guys know what I mean? It takes more to distinguish one celeb from the next. In this game, image is everything. It doesn't matter if its true or false.

OEC

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?

[Morning Glory]

Wouldn't you feel differently about Starbucks selling someone a dependably adequate but unexceptional coffee from a clearly corporate outpost and someone selling mediocre coffee but claiming they are mom and pop and support sustainable agriculture and donate a portion of proceeds to the homeless . . . if really they are secretly backed by a similarly large corporate/business entity and do none of those things? Fundamentally, both things are profit-driven attempts to sell you a coffee, but one is what it is and one is a lie.

well, I always said that I respect honesty, even if it's shallow. so yeah I can see a difference in the ethics, but the bottom line principle is the same. Take someone like bill gates who is now giving away billions of dollars to charities, I don't know, maybe he really is a changed person, but the fact remains that for most of his life his sole purpose was not to help people, but to get rich, and if he didn't use capitalistic business practices to sway the market and shoot down his competetors then he wouldn't have that money. What I'm trying to say is that in my mind any organization that is based on monetary worth and not on helping people, is never going to be able to help people in a context that is not backed up by money. It goes back to what I was saying with the music piracy thread. I don't want to give a billion dollars to starving people so that they can buy food, I want to live in a world where no one goes starving in the first place because people are more important than products.

[Amelia G]

well, I always said that I respect honesty, even if it's shallow. so yeah I can see a difference in the ethics, but the bottom line principle is the same. Take someone like bill gates who is now giving away billions of dollars to charities, I don't know, maybe he really is a changed person, but the fact remains that for most of his life his sole purpose was not to help people, but to get rich, and if he didn't use capitalistic business practices to sway the market and shoot down his competetors then he wouldn't have that money. What I'm trying to say is that in my mind any organization that is based on monetary worth and not on helping people, is never going to be able to help people in a context that is not backed up by money. It goes back to what I was saying with the music piracy thread. I don't want to give a billion dollars to starving people so that they can buy food, I want to live in a world where no one goes starving in the first place because people are more important than products.

It seems like, if people are more important than products, we should expect more integrity in the presentation of people than in the presentation of products.

[ForrestBlack]

See, I just don't buy into those absolutes MorningGlory. I mean, a drug manufacturer is clearly profit driven, they may even be evil in your eyes, but they do put money into research that has a proven track record of developing medicines that genuinely help sick people. So, you can't say profit driven organizations can't possibly help people along the way. I just feel like there is a difference between a company actually helping people, and another company just telling the world they are helping people in order to improve their image when in reality they absolutely are doing no such thing. The drug manufacturer can't just sell people any old pill and tell them it will cure everything that ails them, and then just shrug and say 'it's just business' if they get caught.

Marketing is about presenting your product in an appealing light, but there is a line that gets crossed when the marketing becomes an outright lie. You can't just shrug and say 'it's capitalism.' I truly believe there is right and wrong, even in a capitalist system and total fabrications in the realm of competitive claims falls in an area I just think is patently wrong.