DECEMBER 3, 2008

In the past few years, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) has become a hot commodity, saturating the fashion, jewelry and art worlds.  Indeed, from microscopic blueprint to trendy household commodity, the image of the double helix has permeated the consumer consciousness - not without implicit social consequences.

“Spit parties” like the one recently organized by 23andMe have become the latest social-networking craze.  Hereditary blueprints are now being turned into personalized perfumes and colognes.  For a perfectly accurate, 21st-century self-portrait, you can even map your – or your pets’ – genetic coding in a one-of-a-kind work of art that resembles columns of blocks.  All you have to worry about is which material – canvas, sheet aluminum or photographic paper – will look best on your living room wall.

It’s easy to say that personalization and narcissism are the forces driving this trend, but I do not believe those are the only forces at play.  In a sense, DNA-related products have become, purposely or not, propaganda-like tools for the health and pharmaceutical industries.

For example, orchestrators of the Personal Genome Project cannot steal your DNA while you’re sleeping at night, nor can they make you submit a sample against your will.  But what they can do is position their products and services so tactfully in the marketplace, and into the consumer consciousness, that we may actually find ourselves wanting to upload a DNA sample to a public database.  “The Perfect Unique Gift Idea for the Person who has Everything!”  DNA11’s tagline almost sounds like a subliminal advertisement from Huxley’s Brave New World or Orwell’s 1984, doesn’t it? 

Let me be clear: I’m not saying that our current DNA craze is the result of a premeditated, nationwide conspiracy (I don’t want to get arrested, you know).  But the fact that de-ox-y-ri-bo-nu-cle-ic acid has successfully made its way into the pop-culture marketplace can only better serve those individuals who seek it – and satisfy those companies that crave it.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

DECEMBER 1, 2008

Last week, I read an article in Newsweek that was cleverly called “Change You Can Conceive In: Could Euphoric Obama Fans be Sparking a Baby Boom?”

The author writes, “In the hours and days since Obama’s victory, many of his exhilarated supporters have been, shall we say, in the mood for love.  And though it’s too soon to know for sure, experts aren’t ruling out the possibility of an Obama baby boom—the kind of blip in the national birth rate that often follows a seismic event, whether it’s scary (a terrorist attack) or celebratory (the end of World War II).”

Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe have actually co-written a number of books on the subject of generational baby booms, namely, “Generations: The History of America’s Future,” which tells the history of America through a succession of generational biographies circa 1584 to the present.  According to Strauss and Howe, just as history molds generations, so too do generations mold history.  They even claim to have identified a historical pattern in which each generation belongs to one of four archetypes, or ”Turnings,” that repeats sequentially:

Awakening.  During an Awakening, rising adults are driven by inner zeal to become philosophers, religious pundits, and hippies, as they alienate children (who see the adult world becoming more chaotic each day) and older generations alike.  A Nomad (or Reactive) is born during an Awakening.  Nomadic leaders are cunning, hard-to-fool realists, and taciturn warriors who prefer to meet problems and adversaries one-on-one.

Unraveling.  An Unraveling is an era of relative peace and prosperity between an Awakening and a Crisis.  A Hero (or Civic) is born during an Unraveling.  Heroic leaders are considered vigorous and rational institution-builders, entering midlife as aggressive advocates of technological progress, economic prosperity, social harmony, and public optimism.

Crisis.  A Crisis is a decisive era of secular upheaval in which a values regime propels the replacement of the old civic order with a new one.  Wars are waged with apocalyptic finality.  An Artist (or Adaptive) is born during a Crisis.  Artistic leaders are advocates of fairness and the politics of inclusion, and are irrepressible in the wake of failure.

High.  A High is an era between a Crisis and an Awakening.  A Prophet (or Idealist) is born during a High.  Prophetic leaders are cerebral and principled, summoners of human sacrifice, and wagers of righteous wars.  Early in life, few see combat in uniform; late in life, most come to be revered as much for their words as for their deeds.

What I want to know is whether you agree or disagree with Strauss and Howe’s dissection of generational archetypes.  If you agree with them, where do you believe your generation stands now?  If you disagree with them, what would you add or amend to make them more relevant?

Personally, I believe that an Obama baby boom would compose part of a New Adaptive Generation - a collection of “artists” who will be irrepressible in the wake of modern-day failures.  At least, that is what I hope.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

NOVEMBER 13, 2008

I’ve always been fascinated by the habits of shoppers in the United States.  What we buy, and how we buy, tells us a lot more than the latest fashion trends; it gives us a glimpse into what we value and how we prioritize.  However, lately, it seems as if Americans have been forced to take a “back to basics” approach, buying only what is needed and not necessarily what is wanted.  We are no longer living with the mindset that we can simply “charge it” and worry about it later. Instead, we have been forced to live in the moment and buy only what we can afford, or suffer the consequences. 

I was shocked to read an article in USA Today last month about the massive shift in buying habits at Wal-Mart stores in the U.S.  According to the October 22 article, Wal-Mart has noticed that there has been an increase in sales at the beginning and middle of the months (paydays), which they’ve never noticed before.  The double-digit decline in credit card usage among consumers also reveals that consumers are maxing out their credit cards and are now being forced to resort to “living within their means” - a concept that many Americans have departed from over the years.  Now I’ve never had to live through a recession, but wonder whether our tough economic times will be a good wake-up call to consumers about the importance of living within their means. Will we, as a society, ressurect old habits and start a “back to basics” trend?

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

NOVEMBER 3, 2008

“…and I don’t know what to do, ‘Cause I’ll never be with you.” 

James Blunt obviously craves a meaningful life - and, like many others, he finds it through romance.  For the rest of us, all we really have to do is browse through the “Missed Connections” page on Craigslist.

Last week I read an article on CNN.com entitled “‘I saw you’ romance ads wildly popular.”  The author writes,

Craigslist, Kizmeet.com, ISawYou.com, SubwayCrush.com – these missed-opportunity matchmakers have become a staple of online modern love.  They’ve also become a way for some singles to fantasize about the people they’d like to meet and those they hope will want to meet them.

Mary Robertson, a documentary filmmaker in New York City, isn’t surprised by the appeal of the missed connection.  She’s been working on a film about the phenomenon for almost a year. “What inspires me about these ads is the density of the narrative,” Robertson says.  “The longing, the romance – all in this small space.  They’re like haikus.”

Blogger J. Stone at That’s So Fetch does not feel so inspired.  Stone writes,

Craigslist’s ‘missed connections’ gives soft-spoken people with a self-aware cowardice the chance to reconnect with a girl/guy they saw perusing the cereal aisle or the buxom blond who smiled back at them at the airport. . . . I would really like to know the average IQ of these people.  Instead of posting anonymously on the internet about some chick you missed out on, how about you work on your interpersonal skills?

One could certainly argue that the growing popularity of “missed connections” and “ambient awareness” is actually a reaction to social isolation – the modern American disconnectedness that Robert Putnam explored in his book Bowling Alone.

Indeed, have the internet and accompanying communications technologies actually made us feel lonelier than ever?  More socially inept than ever?  Are we purposely, purposefully - and, yes, perhaps cowardly - “missing the connection” in hopes of a fatalistic reunion on the internet?  Some believe fantasy love is better than real love, after all.

Ultimately, whether you admire or pity people who track down alleged “missed connections,” you have to admit that the appeal of missed-connection Web sites may indicate a shift in how people approach the search for love.

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 21, 2008

Here at TMG Strategies, we place a lot of value on public opinion research as a tool to help our clients understand how their products and issues are being perceived and understood by the average consumer.  And, as the social media team here at TMG often says, social media provides some of the best market research out there - it’s free, it’s authentic, and it can be accessed by anyone.

One of my favorite sites for free, authentic public opinion research is the Compete blog, which takes a look at traffic metrics across the Internet to answer various questions, like: 1) how is a particular marketing campaign doing?; 2) how do two companies’ marketing strategies compare, in terms of success?; 3) how effective are various online tools at driving sales or traffic?; or even 4) what’s on people’s minds these days?

A recent Compete post addressed question #4, above. Given the news of late, it’s not surprising that people are worried about the economy and are keenly interested in the presidential election.  But, according to Compete’s list of the fastest growing sites for September traffic, last month people were also interested in storms (the second fastest growing site was stormpulse.com and the fourth was FEMA’s home page); Halloween (costume stores held the sixth and seventh places on the list); and tennis (usopen.org was #11).

Maybe it’s just me, but I find this kind of information fascinating. How are we coping with all of the bad news around us? Are we bravely, solemnly trying to understand the crux of the problem, thus propelling the FDIC site to #5 on the list? Or are we escaping into fanciful traditions like Halloween or old standbys like sports? Or is it some combination of both?

I believe that people are in a natural state when they are online, meaning they do pretty much what they want and spend time in the places and communities that truly interest them. The Compete list is just one small piece of a world of online data waiting to be explored and analyzed.

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 16, 2008

I recently completed a lifelong dream.

It didn’t require a degree in rocket science, the ability to hit a baseball, or good enough looks to attract Tiffani Amber Thiessen (but I would easily settle for Elizabeth Berkley).

I only needed a clever play on words and a few dollars.

This past weekend I received my new plates and registration for my car. On the DMV’s website I noticed how easily I could add a personalized vanity plate while renewing my registration. As a native of Massachusetts, where it is more expensive to get vanity plates, I was delighted. I quickly solicited some ideas on my personal blog and soon my new plates were on their way.

When I was 16 I thought personalized plates would be cool, but it was a luxury that few indulged in back in Chelmsford, MA. When I moved down to Virginia I noticed that the number of people who personalized was much higher - and I am not the only one to notice.

Personalized plates are now expanding globally. China recently allowed their citizens to purchase personalized plates for their automobiles. In contrast, license plates are randomly assigned in Europe and are very expensive for those who seek specific combinations. Just ask the English gentleman who paid over $20,000 for his.

In regards to my plates- be sure to honk if you are ever driving in Arlington and pass by a beat-up Toyota Corolla with my clever name play: Pho Sho.

[Comment(1) »] [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 5, 2008

Are you familiar with Stanley Milgram’s 1967 Small World Experiment?  What about the popular late 90s trivia game “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon?”  Even if you aren’t, well, chances are you have a not-so-distant acquaintance in your social network who is.

According to an article in The Washington Post, Milgram’s famous experiment was recently corroborated by a massive study of electronic communication, loosely referred to as the “Microsoft Messenger Project.”  The study included every member of the Microsoft Messenger instant-messaging service from June 2006, or roughly half the world’s instant-messaging traffic at the time.

After reviewing 30 billion electronic conversations among 180 million people from around the world, Microsoft researchers found that “any two people on average are distanced by just 6.6 degrees of separation, meaning that they could be linked by a string of seven or fewer acquaintances.”  For the purposes of their experiment, two people were considered to be acquaintances if they had sent one another a text message.

In response to the study, lead researcher Eric Horvitz said, “It was pretty shocking . . . there may be a social connectivity constant for humanity . . . that this idea goes beyond folklore.”

That Mr. Horvitz would find this study “pretty shocking” is pretty shocking to me.  Has it not already become conventional wisdom that people are connected in such ways – perhaps in more ways than we could ever count or possibly even comprehend?  Take you and me, for instance.  I’d be willing to bet that we have hundreds if not thousands of ties among us, and I would be placing that bet on intuition alone.

There’s even a well-known mathematical law we can use to put the shock value of this social “phenomenon” into perspective.  Known as the Law of Truly Large Numbers, it states that, with a sample size large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to happen – including (you guessed it) meeting someone who “coincidentally” shares a mutual acquaintance or some other personal connection with you.

For example, did you know that more than 16 million other people on this planet celebrate the same birthday as you?  At a typical football game with 50,000 fans, it’s likely that you will share your birthday with approximately 135 of them (unless, of course, you were born on February 29 – in this case, you will share your birthday with an estimated 34 other fans).  Therefore, according to the Law of Truly Large Numbers, it’s not really that unlikely, on any given day, for you to be in close proximity to someone who was born on the same day as you.  Most of the time, you just don’t realize it.

The Law has previously been used to put into perspective the odds of a person winning the lottery twice in his/her lifetime.  You might think the odds are something like 1-in-17 trillion, but they are really closer to 1-in-30.  The same principle can be applied to miracles.  If you (1) define a miracle as an exceptional event occurring at a frequency of one-in-a-million, (2) experience one event per second (3) for no less than eight alert/waking hours of the day, then after 35 days, you will have experienced 1,008,000 things.  Therefore, in keeping with the Law of Truly Large Numbers, you should actually experience about one miracle every five weeks over the course of your life.

So, please, Mr. Horvitz, save us the whole dog and pony show.  It would be an understatement to say that we kind of already suspected it was a small world, after all.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 26, 2008

With technology, it seems you can be everywhere you want to be.  Can’t make it to a class?  Take one online.  Can’t drive down to check out a new neighborhood?  Take a Street View tour.  There’s no excuse anymore not to “attend” church when it’s streaming online!  Can’t go to a funeral in Idaho, watch it online.  Yep, that’s right… online funerals.  The Associated Press reports that Downard Funeral Home is now posting funerals online for those who can not attend.  According to the report:  

“‘There’s no charge to the families,’ Lance Peck, funeral home owner, told the Idaho State Journal. ‘It’s just part of the service.’  He said the services remain online for 90 days, and that an e-mail is sent to family members who can assign a password so only those the family wants to view the ceremony have access.” 

Not only does technology allow us to be everywhere we want to be, but places we weren’t previously allowed.  The Sunday Times reports on a new high tech restaurant with touch screen table tops that allows you to scroll through the menu, order, get the bill, play games, and peak at what is going on in the kitchen.  Now you can know what’s really cooking in the kitchen!  Want to see how your art collection was made? This cool site allows you to watch live glass blowing in Tacoma.   

Companies are thinking of new ways to get customers involved and consumers are expecting more and more access.  It seems there will be nothing off limits to consumers in the future.  If something is going on, we want to see it.  I just have one question.  Will anyone actually be at my funeral?

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 19, 2008

It’s obvious that times are changing– in many ways.  Too many to count, actually.  I know this makes me sound old, but I was born in the 80s, so I’m not that old…yet. 

One thing that I’ve always been fascinated with is people’s strong opinions about cohabitation by couples before marriage (this reminds me a bit of the stay-at-home mom vs. the working mom debate).  Most people I know find themselves leaning strongly towards one end of the spectrum or the other– for varying reasons.  Some think that it’s never appropriate for a couple to live together until marriage; others feel that if it makes sense financially and personally, they should go for it to “test out” the relationship before they leap into something a lot more serious. 

This doesn’t even take into account the barrage of images of celebrity couples (think Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt) who are choosing to live together before marriage and even start families with no feelings of obligation to wed.  The public may start thinking, if they can do it… why can’t I? 

A July USA Today article called “Living Together Isn’t Just ‘Playing House’ ” really delves into the issue and explains why living together no longer has the negative associations and stereotypes attached to it that it did in days of the past.  According to the article, the number of opposite-sex couples who live together has jumped from less than 1 million 30 years ago to 6.4 million in 2007. 

According to Jay Teachman, a sociology professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham, while old data showed an increased risk of divorce among cohabiting couples, that’s not necessarily true today:

Twenty or 25 years ago, if you were cohabiting and then married them, the marriage was more likely to dissolve and end in divorce…today that’s not the case.  You can cohabit with your spouse and not experience increased risk of divorce.  We’re making these finer distinctions that we didn’t make before.

I personally feel that cohabitation before marriage can be a good thing.  For me, it in part came down to a financial decision.  After I got engaged I realized it was pointless to keep my apartment because I was spending all of my free time at my fiance’s house.  Why continue to pay rent when I knew we’d be living together in a matter of months, anyway? 

My mom wasn’t exactly thrilled about this… but she got over it after she did the math and realized it would only be two months of living together before the date of our wedding.  She raised me with the mindset that cohabitation before marriage is a very bad thing.  Now that I am older and have formed opinions of my own, I stand somewhere in the middle of the cohabitation wars: I appreciate the idea in certain circumstances, but I also respect the perspective of my mother.

What do you think?  Is cohabitation less of a big deal today than it was in the past?  Does the new evidence make you think any differently about the concept?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]