DECEMBER 17, 2008

Have you ever left a store and suddenly found yourself singing a song that you don’t remember hearing – perhaps one that you haven’t heard in years? “I got soul, but I’m not a soldier / I got soul, but I’m not a soldier…”

What about in the morning, after you’ve hit the snooze button a dozen times and finally dragged yourself out of bed and into the shower: do you ever start humming a familiar tune, but have no idea why? “I used to rule the world / Seas would rise when I gave the word… Dum, dum, dum de dum dum dum.”

Well, chances are that The Killers’ 2005 hit song, hypothetically speaking, was actually playing in that store you were in - your conscious mind was just too busy searching for a smaller size to take notice. (Meanwhile, your subconscious mind was having a jam-session with itself!) In addition, Coldplay’s latest single was likely one of the first songs your radio/alarm clock played when it first woke you up this morning. You just weren’t quite awake enough to realize it consciously .

Remembering something without being aware that we are remembering it is a consequence of priming and implicit memory- two relatively harmless psychological phenomena. But a problem arises in the artistic world (music, film, literature) when an artist subconsciously adopts someone else’s work while believing it was actually a product of his/her own creative powers.

Earlier this year, for instance, musician Joe Satriani accused Coldplay of lifting elements of his song “If I Could Fly” for Coldplay’s hit song “Viva La Vida.” Immediately, I was inclined to believe that Coldplay’s Chris Martin (creative genius) may have subconsciously copied the beat, chords and melody of Satriani’s song. As Wired’s Eliot Van Buskirk explains, it’s not uncommon for musicians to hear something and “regurgitate” it later without realizing it. Considering all of the songs we have access to in the digital music era, I would have to agree with Van Buskirk.

To complicate things further, however, it appears that videos depicting similarities between the two songs have been disappearing from YouTube, courtesy of Coldplay’s label, EMI, which claims that the videos infringe on its copyright.  (One of only a few surviving videos can be found here.) A legitimate claim on the part of EMI, or a clever attempt at a cover-up? You decide.

Either way, Van Buskirk finds it interesting that EMI is using copyright as a way to remove one version of a Coldplay song while allowing other versions to remain online.

It’s a useful reminder of the ways in which copyright law can be used for purposes other than thwarting the infringement of copyright. In this case, it’s a somewhat useful tool for downplaying plagiarism accusations directed at one of the world’s top acts.

We already know priming agents can influence cravings and the consumer decision-making process - that’s been the aim of marketing and advertising gurus for years. In an over-saturated society, however, I wonder: have priming and implicit memory lost their touch, or are their influential powers yet to be tapped?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

NOVEMBER 25, 2008

In 2004, vintners and wine store owners commonly referred to the “Sideways effect,” whereby the Oscar-winning film directly influenced consumer impressions and purchases of pinot noir, a once relatively obscure red wine.  According to ACNielsen, sales of pinot noir reached an impressive 370,000 cases between October 24, 2004 and January 15, 2005, an increase of nearly 16% from the same period a year earlier.

It still came as a surprise last week, however, to learn that the “Sideways effect” may have actually reached Japan. Seriously. In an article in Variety magazine, I read that Fox Japan and the Fuji TV network recently announced the details of their joint Japanese remake of Alexander Payne’s 2004 hit movie.  “Wait,” I thought.  “Japan remaking Hollywood?  Usually it’s the other way around!”  This time, though, it wasn’t.

Curiously, as Cinematical’s Peter Martin reports, Japan doesn’t have a native wine culture equivalent to that of the United States, mostly due to weather and soil issues, not to mention a scarcity of land.  In the past year, however, California wine imports have significantly increased in Japan.  Martin writes, “And the comic Kami no Shizuku (translated as The Drops of God; pictured) has become a phenomenon over the last couple of years, read by 500,000 Japanese weekly, according to Telegraph (UK), and sending wine sales skyrocketing across Asia.  The series details a young man’s quest to identify the 12 wines described in his father’s will.”

Set to release in Japan next fall, the remake, which is already shooting on location in California’s Napa Valley, will likely spark a new Asian interest in American wines.  And, if I were a Napa Valley vintner or wine seller, I would already be personalizing my website and my shop for the massive wave of Japanese tourism that is sure to seek my business next winter.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 20, 2008

Should recording artists that make their music available via a “blanket license” from a firm such as ASCAP (the American Society of Composers, Authors and Performers) or BMI (Broadcast Music Inc.) be able to restrict use of their songs if they feel their music is being used to deliver messages they don’t agree with?

In last Monday’s Washington Post, University of Virginia law professors Christopher Sprigman and Silva Vaidhyanathan asked this question in reference to the ongoing controversy concerning the McCain campaign and accusations by artists including Heart, Jackson Browne and John Mellencamp that the campaign is using their songs without first getting consent. They make this claim even though the McCain campaign has a blanket license to use the music.

Sprigman and Vaidhyanathan say that technically the blanket license should cover McCain, but also that McCain should be allowed to use the songs under the First Amendment. They say:

Politicians use songs as a way to tell people what they stand for — or at least what they want us to believe they stand for. Using a song to communicate a political message is just the kind of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect.

Personally, I find it easy to side with the artists in this case. I wouldn’t want my art politicized or used in a way that suggested I endorsed a particular candidate. On an issue as divisive as politics, it’s an easy view to defend. But how far does that argument go?

The Virginia Tech football team regularly enters their home games to the tune of “Hells Bells” by AC/DC. Should we take this to mean that AC/DC is made up of Hokie fans? Likewise, if AC/DC was actually made up of UVA football fans, should they be able to file a cease-and-desist order against Virginia Tech?

Or, what if “Time of Your Life” by Green Day were played over the loudspeaker at a public event celebrating the retirement of a respected teacher. Should Green Day have a right to get a cease-and-desist order against the school system?

Perhaps AC/DC and Green Day should have this right. But when looked at in this light, does this use seem quite as objectionable as Jackson Browne makes it out to be?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 25, 2008

Television is not the medium it was even a mere year ago, and we are not the audience we were, either.  We are all evolving, television and us together.  But good Lord, into what?

That’s how Tom Shales opened his column in The Washington Post last Sunday.

One day later, Lana Sweeten-Shults with the Times Record (TX) added her own earnest evaluation of modern television.  Her focus, however, was on programming, as she wrote, “You have good TV.  You have bad TV.  And then you have a whole other genre called guilty TV, which is probably a subgenre of bad TV except that you cannot seem to look away, which makes it good TV, right?”

To me, justifying watching bad TV simply because it’s “addictive” is about the same as justifying smoking a cigarette because it, too, is “addictive.”  Viewing public, can we really not help ourselves?!

No, we can’t.  On September 11, the copycats at FOX aired yet another Americanized version of a popular Japanese game show: Hole in the Wall.  And, just as Sweeten-Shults described, despite the show’s cheesy, debasing awfulness - and the fact that it premiered on the anniversary of the most tragic day in America’s history - I could not help but watch.

If you missed the premiere (you are better off for it), the object of this bizarre cabaret is to twist your body into unusual shapes in order to squeeze through uneven holes in a fast-approaching Styrofoam wall.  If the contestants fail to fit through the cut-outs, they run smack into the wall and fall helplessly backwards into a deep, aquatic abyss – usually accompanied by a broken Styrofoam souvenir.  (Don’t worry – standing by are two shirtless, chuckling lifeguards who readily jump in after the fallen).

In the one-hour series premiere, 400-pound wrestlers challenged 100-pound equestrians in “Sumo Wrestlers vs. Jockeys.”  Afterward, an Italian family from the North took on a family from the South in “Spicy New York Meatballs vs. Sweet Georgia Peaches.”  The Sweet Georgia Peaches were all women, and all overweight.  (The show’s producers obviously think the chubbier, the funnier, right?)

I’m no xenophobe, but American re-makes of Japanese game shows, as guilty as I am for watching them, disturb me nonetheless.  For one, they make me feel like we’re all locked away in a zoo on Tralfamadore or some other alien planet, watching each other commit self-deprecating acts for the sake of E.T.’s perverted pleasure.  And, as long as it’s not us out there, it is okay for us to laugh.

So, why are shows like this so popular?  Hollywood Reporter explains:

“There’s the flashing lights, the dramatic music, the preening announcers, the competitors in loud colors serving up mounds of inane trash talk.  All of the ingredients are in place to drive home the point that the broadcast world continues to implode before our eyes.”

To my surprise (or maybe not), the show is actually a hit in several countries other than Japan and the United States.  Also tuning in are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Denmark, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Sweden and Britain.

I believe John Doyle from the Globe and Mail best summarizes the reality of modern television programming:

How things change – on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there is little evidence of the anniversary being marked on prime-time TV.  Instead, what’s in evidence is what the post-9/11 period has become – a time of escapism, frivolity and the glorification of singing and dancing competitions.

Flexibility, adaptability, metal acuity and physical dexterity in a fast-paced, ever-changing environment - ”Hole in the Wall” contains so many evolutionary undertones it might as well be called “Survival of the Fittest.”  Who knew, after all, that Social Darwinism could be so darn entertaining!

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 8, 2008

Regulators! Mount up!

Those are the lyrics I expected to hear as I sat down for lunch this past Thursday. I was about to enjoy a lovely dish of shish kebobs (I’m on an international food binge) when I heard the bass line to Warren G’s “Regulate”. It was the song all my high school friends couldn’t stop listening to.

The first thought that went through my mind is how cool this little Mediterranean café was for invoking such nostalgic thoughts. However, those thoughts led to confusion as I heard the lyrics that followed the intro:

I keep forgettin’ things will never be the same again
I keep forgettin’ how you made that so clear 

Those weren’t the dope beats from Warren G but instead the passionate prose of Michael McDonald. I realized I wasn’t listening to Warren G’s “Regulate”, but the song “I Keep Forgettin’ (Every Time You’re Near).”

It only took me a second to realize that Warren G’s song wasn’t entirely his original work, but used samples taken from McDonald. It’s become a common practice for musical artists to take samples from older songs and integrate them in their work. Eminem’s “Sing for the Moment” samples Aerosmith; Sean Kingston’s “Beautiful Girls” samples Ben E. King’s “Stand By Me”; and Nelly’s “Heart of a Champion” samples the NBA on NBC theme song.  Sometimes the most obscure samples are the best ones. Amy Winehouse will be using the Wizard of Oz in her next single, proving that nothing is safe from song sampling.

It’s grown to new heights with DJs like Greg Gillis (aka Girl Talk.) He creates entire songs completely out of samples. I can’t stop listening to his latest album “Feed the Animals.” The entire album is 14 songs made up of samples from over 300 songs. I think it’s a terrific album and I think everyone needs to download it (which you can do for free.) 

But here’s the issue at hand: when musical artists start creating songs using other artists’ works, when does it become copyright infringement? Some artists claim fair use, which isn’t a totally ironclad defense, and others point to various international treaties and conventions, but there are no clear laws that regulate song sampling.

What do you think? Is it an infringement of copyright to use a sample in a song? Where is the line in terms of sampling?

All I know is I’ll be listening to Girl Talk in the gym tonight- it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 4, 2008

It must be hard owning a brand these days. Everywhere you turn, you hear about how consumers are taking over, how control has shifted away from the owners of products and brands and into the hands of the people who use those products and brands, regardless of whether they love or hate them.

From a consumer standpoint, however, these are exciting times. Last week, I read on a few blogs(subscription needed) about some Twitterers who had shown up using the names of characters on AMC’s sophomore drama “Mad Men.” For those of us who follow this addictive, intense drama, this was exciting news! Don Draper on Twitter? Never mind that for a show with an obsessive eye to detail and factual accuracy, this made no sense - Don Draper is an advertising executive in the 60s, when the delivery of a new copy machine was met with complete and utter befuddlement. It didn’t matter - the “Mad Men” characters on Twitter were simply a very cool extension of the “Mad Men” franchise into a new medium, one that would only encourage fan intensity for this show.

Well, as it turns out, Don Draper on Twitter wasn’t in fact created by AMC, or the writers of “Mad Men”, or anyone else connected with the show. And AMC’s first reaction was to have the accounts taken down. Luckily, they (thanks to their digital agency) changed their mind a few days later and allowed the accounts to be reinstated. As the Silicon Alley Insider said:

What happened? Deep Focus, the Web marketing group that works for AMC, tells us that they gently nudged their client into rescinding the DMCA takedown notice they’d sent to Twitter. See, in Web marketing parlance, the Twitterers assuming the names of Mad Men characters are actually “brand ambassadors” meant to be cultivated, not thwarted.”Better to embrace the community than negate their efforts,” says a Deep Focus spokesman. We agree!

I can understand AMC’s reticence. They’ve spent millions of dollars creating these complex characters, imagining their wardrobes, their anxieties, their ambitions. Why would they be comfortable with these unknown Twitterers hijacking these finely honed identities and tweeting all over the blogosphere?

On the other hand, though, in an age where mass media is rapidly fading and traditional advertising simply doesn’t work, what could be better than having bunch of people love your programming so much that they want to assume the identities of your characters and spread the word about them over the Internet?

Take a deep breath, AMC. It will be OK. Just roll with it. If this doesn’t get you new viewers, I’d be very surprised.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 3, 2008

Because someone in my office gave birth to a healthy baby boy early yesterday morning, and another one of my colleagues is about to become a new mom later this month, and also in honor of “Labor” Day, I thought it would be appropriate to blog about the crazy Hollywood obsession with getting the very first pictures of newly famous newborns with their famous parents.

People and OK! magazines are usually the first to release full-page spreads of sleeping babies cradled by their proud parents… and thousands of people flock to the newsstands to take a look at the tiny people.  The pictures (and the rights to the pictures) are purchased with very hefty price tags.  This raises a question of ethics.

USA Today featured a story called “The High Cost of Celeb-Baby Fever” in August that focuses on the topic of ethics in the sale and release of baby photos.  The article makes mention of the recent record-breaking $14 million deal between Hello!, a magazine based in Britain that purchased international rights to a 19-page “family album” of pictures of the Jolie-Pitt twins– Vivienne Marcheline and Knox Leon.  Before this deal, the most that was reportedly paid for celebrity baby pictures was $6 million, to Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony after the birth of their twins.

Now the ethical questions: will this crazy sum of money (seriously, I can’t picture $14 million bucks in my head) become “the norm” in the world of Hollywood now?  Will other celebrities expect money like this for their pictures?  Also, is it even right to sell your baby’s pictures to the media and essentially objectify them at such a young and vulnerable age? 

Then comes the mental health of the child later upon learning that pictures of them were sold for all of the world to see.  Will the kids resent their parents later? 

Also, where is the money going?  Does the fact that some or all of the money received for pictures may go to charity change things at all?
Everyone has a different opinion about this issue.  I personally think that if the pictures are not sold to the media in the beginning, the paparazzi will go crazy trying to pry their way into the lives of celebrities just to get the first one.  Also, the financial aspect is really not anyone’s business.  If a mother–who spent hours and hours giving birth to a child– decides to take and sell some pictures, that’s her choice.  She clearly is making the best choice she can make for her child and her family.  I also think that charitable donations are an honorable cause and it’s wonderful that a few pictures could benefit the multitude of groups receiving aid because of a few pictures. 

In the end, what does it matter?  We are so saturated with images, celebrity news, drama, and gossip that the pictures will be old news before we know it. 

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 25, 2008

I’ve been following the trend of migration of TV viewers to the internet for a couple of months now and recently came across this article in The Los Angeles Times.

What really struck me was this quote from the article: “[F]or the first time…a ‘significant portion’ of the online audience for a prime-time TV show is not always watching the show on TV.”

And, check out this stat:

• More than 20% of Americans watched some prime-time TV on a computer monitor during the Spring 2008 TV season, up from 6% in the fall of 2007 (Integrated Media Measurement, a San Mateo, CA research firm).

Although this stat may be skewed by the writers’ strike that started November 5, 2007 and ended February 12, 2008 when new TV show episode production was essentially shut down due to a lack of writers or production staff, a 14% difference from one year to the next seems like a dramatic shift.

If this keeps up, television broadcast networks had better take heed.  And some already have.  According to this MediaWeek article, the WB.com will launch on August 27, showing series that aired on the TV network in addition to a new series.

While I do occasionally watch TV episodes online, I have no intention of ditching my TV set and moving my couch in front of my computer monitor.  I still enjoy watching TV episodes and movies in front of the tube.  What I really want is the flexibility and convenience to download episodes and movies when I want but then watch them on my big screen.

Some companies have anticipated this desire.  Sony’s Playstation 3 and Microsoft’s Xbox LIVE have services that allow users to rent movies and download TV shows and watch them on your TV set.  And Apple Inc.’s Apple TV also lets users watch downloaded iTunes content on their sets.

Is the television set slowly becoming extinct or simply learning to share the attention?  No matter the outcome, this trend has spurred innovative technologies, as I mentioned, that now more than ever allow the consumer to take more control of the content that is offered to them.

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 22, 2008

I recently went out to dinner at a relatively upscale restaurant in the area.  My husband and I were leisurely enjoying our dinner when I looked up and noticed that there was a TV directly in my line of vision, broadcasting a baseball game.  While I have nothing against baseball or TV in general, I was annoyed by the fact that there seems to be no way to avoid it. It used to be the only place to watch TV was at your house or maybe local sports bars — now, there is no escape.

And it’s not just restaurants.  Have you noticed that everywhere you go these days there seems to be a TV blaring the latest advertisements, infotainment segments or election news?  TV screens are now ever-present at airports, doctors offices, gas station pumps, grocery store check out lines, the gym, the office, and definitely restaurants.  Can you even remember the last time you ate at a restaurant that didn’t have a TV on at the bar?

A recent study by Arbitron media found that one in three people watch television outside of their own home on any given day.

Is it that we are so used to being bombarded with information and entertainment that we can’t tolerate being alone with our thoughts?  Or perhaps marketers and entertainers feel they have no choice in today’s saturated society but to try and reach us at all times and places.  Do we really need to be entertained for the three minutes it takes to fill up our gas tank?  Will we lead a less fulfilling life if we aren’t aware of the latest Hollywood breakup immediately via the mall TV channel?

A recent Fast Company article touches on this phenomenon, stating:

In a DVR world, advertisers are reaching outside the home for today’s most desirable audience: a captive one. Anywhere people might be waiting equals an opportunity to air short-form content and advertising.

And according to a recent New York Times article:

There are at least 37,000 shops, offices and health clubs across the country that broadcast ads on TV screens…and are also in 20 percent of all groceries and 11 percent of all office  buildings.  The Wal-Mart TV Network now includes more than 125,000 screens in 2,850 Wal-Mart stores.

What do you think?  Does it bother you to have TV programming everywhere you go in today’s society? Or do you welcome the distraction and entertainment?

I, for one, could do without it.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 18, 2008

In and around Washington, D.C. you encounter tourists on a daily basis.  Whether on the Metro, walking around downtown, taking a tour of the monuments or going to souvenir shops, it is inevitable that you will run into tourists at any time of year.  Sometimes these individuals might be talking loudly and you have no choice but overhear some of these conversations.  And sometimes, those conversations are absurd, comical, or puzzlingly ignorant.  I should note, however, that it is not just visitors to the city that make some of these interesting statements.  Yes, on occasion even the city’s own citizens engaging in strange conversations.

When you hear something you think is too good to keep to yourself, you may call a friend or send a text. But today, I am pleased to inform you that there are better, more public outlets for all these befuddling statements.  For your pleasure, Eavesdrop DC  and Overheard DC  from DCist.  These sites/sections specialize in posting anonymous conversations that are too good not to share.  Whether the source is local or a tourist, these sites include up-to-the-minute reports of some of the city’s “best” offerings.  This is just another example of how anything anyone does in these hype-media times can (and probably will) find its way onto the internet.

What does this mean?

Be suspicious and cognizant the next time you are talking in public, because you never know when someone is waiting to post part of your conversation on the internet.  It could be that person standing next to you in line at the store, walking down the street, reading a book on a bench, or that guy looking at you and talking on his shoephone.

[Comments(5) »] [TrackBack »]