Archive for the 'Pop Culture' Category

What Is Hollywood Anyway?

As I rush off to India for my first tour of Bollywood, I thnk to pay attention to Julian Myer’s comments to Variety last Friday (“Myers fears Hollywood’s end is near”):

Longtime Hollywood publicist Julian Myers will turn 90 soon. And he worries the end may be near … for his beloved town.

Myers frets that the WGA stalemate — with all of its acrimony, vitriol ,and job losses — is a harbinger of ill things for the industry.

“The strike impasse is speeding the end of Hollywood filmmaking and television production,” said he.

Notice Myers qualifies his statement with the word HOLLYWOOD because film and video production are no longer geographically anchored to that festering freak show.

However, while we certainly agree with his sentiment that much volatile change is afoot, we wouldn’t go so far with the doomsaying Mr. Myers portrays. Though the colossal days of Hollywood largesse are waning, rest assured the studio system of today isn’t going anywhere. There will always be power players, but maybe this strike will have done some good.

In fact, why do Myers’ comments strike such a chord with the Punk Marketing crowd?

His statement is illustrative of the way the wind is blowing, highlighting the fact that media content models are shifting. But all of this could leave the uninitiated scratching their heads asking “Golly, what’s next?”

It’s a pretty easy question to answer if…

…you’ve read Punk Marketing (especially Chapters 10 & 11!).

…you were one of the 13 MILLION people who watched that “Chocolate Rain” video, composed and performed by 25-year-old singer/songwriter Tay Zonday.

…you work for Dr. Pepper’s marketing team and were smart enough to pay Tay to do a branded content video for Pepper’s line of Cherry Chocolate soda.

You may have already seen the “Rain” when it was posted on YouTube back in November, along with the gazillions who started sending it to friends, but if not—loser—you can check it out here.

It’s a kick ass example of how an independent artist (quote unquote) can benefit from a new content model and oddly cash-in on the power of 2.0! And how companies CAN use branded content for marketing to insinuate themselves into a mix without being too damn heavy-handed.

So if it works for marketing, why not TV shows and movies? It’s only a matter of time before major production dudes begin seriously engaging and recruiting straight from the ranks of DIY artisans just now relegated to the wilds of YouTube and the very large Web.

In fact it’s already happening. Peep into what Jenna Wortham posted on Wired’s Underwire blog last Tuesday, “From YouTube to the BoobTube: a Parody of The Office Gets a Movie Deal:”

A group of YouTubers hit it big when their mash-up vid got picked up for small-screen distribution. 305, due out on DVD this Spring, will be a Spinal Tap-style mockumentary, following the adventures of a group of Spartans.

So there you have it. Need clearer?

Myer’s was right in one respect: ‘an end’ is near in a manner of speaking: but it’s the end of the beginning, not the beginning per se.

No writers strike, no stalemate, no real Hollywood—it’s all just gravy for everyone!

Or maybe curry.


What Is Hollywood Anyway?

As I rush off to India for my first tour of Bollywood, I thnk to pay attention to Julian Myer’s comments to Variety last Friday (“Myers fears Hollywood’s end is near”):

Longtime Hollywood publicist Julian Myers will turn 90 soon. And he worries the end may be near … for his beloved town.

Myers frets that the WGA stalemate — with all of its acrimony, vitriol ,and job losses — is a harbinger of ill things for the industry.

“The strike impasse is speeding the end of Hollywood filmmaking and television production,” said he.

Notice Myers qualifies his statement with the word HOLLYWOOD because film and video production are no longer geographically anchored to that festering freak show.

However, while we certainly agree with his sentiment that much volatile change is afoot, we wouldn’t go so far with the doomsaying Mr. Myers portrays. Though the colossal days of Hollywood largesse are waning, rest assured the studio system of today isn’t going anywhere. There will always be power players, but maybe this strike will have done some good.

In fact, why do Myers’ comments strike such a chord with the Punk Marketing crowd?

His statement is illustrative of the way the wind is blowing, highlighting the fact that media content models are shifting. But all of this could leave the uninitiated scratching their heads asking “Golly, what’s next?”

It’s a pretty easy question to answer if…

…you’ve read Punk Marketing (especially Chapters 10 & 11!).

…you were one of the 13 MILLION people who watched that “Chocolate Rain” video, composed and performed by 25-year-old singer/songwriter Tay Zonday.

…you work for Dr. Pepper’s marketing team and were smart enough to pay Tay to do a branded content video for Pepper’s line of Cherry Chocolate soda.

You may have already seen the “Rain” when it was posted on YouTube back in November, along with the gazillions who started sending it to friends, but if not—loser—you can check it out here.

It’s a kick ass example of how an independent artist (quote unquote) can benefit from a new content model and oddly cash-in on the power of 2.0! And how companies CAN use branded content for marketing to insinuate themselves into a mix without being too damn heavy-handed.

So if it works for marketing, why not TV shows and movies? It’s only a matter of time before major production dudes begin seriously engaging and recruiting straight from the ranks of DIY artisans just now relegated to the wilds of YouTube and the very large Web.

In fact it’s already happening. Peep into what Jenna Wortham posted on Wired’s Underwire blog last Tuesday, “From YouTube to the BoobTube: a Parody of The Office Gets a Movie Deal:”

A group of YouTubers hit it big when their mash-up vid got picked up for small-screen distribution. 305, due out on DVD this Spring, will be a Spinal Tap-style mockumentary, following the adventures of a group of Spartans.

So there you have it. Need clearer?

Myer’s was right in one respect: ‘an end’ is near in a manner of speaking: but it’s the end of the beginning, not the beginning per se.

No writers strike, no stalemate, no real Hollywood—it’s all just gravy for everyone!

Or maybe curry.


DRM DRAMA

On Jan. 4, 2008, in his article “Death of DRM Could Weaken iTunes, Boost iPod” Dave Kravetz of Wired wrote:

“The report that Sony BMG is moving to DRM-free downloads represents the music industry’s white-flag concession that its copyright-protection scheme created a powerhouse in Apple’s iTunes Store while failing to combat piracy.” Wot!

Happily, we couldn’t agree more. Punks hate DRM, if not out of principle then simply how poorly attempts at “digital rights management” have been executed.

But besides just failing to combat piracy, DRM has also been a total fiasco for record companies in terms of PR devaluation.

Keeping with the Sony BMG example, a few of you may recall that not far down the memory hole, in October 2005, there was quite a row over the “rootkit” shenanigans perpetrated by the naughty and positively Orwellian Sony.

Installing hidden software on customers’ computers that open up security holes on your system, slow down your computer, or cause it to crash??

Talk about bad PR karma.

And the back lash was tremendous in the wake of Mark Russinovich’s (appropriately dated) October 31, 2005 blog post “Sony, Rootkits and Digital Rights Management Gone Too Far” In the end, citizen journo Russinovich showed Sony his own version of “digital rights management” and gave them a digi-journali-tal smackdown.

And while many of us may be cheering the DRM death knell being sounded, it remains to be seen if Sony-like companies have learned from their mistakes. There’s already talk of the next stage in the evolution of this intellectual property trend at Wired—a/k/a watermarking.

And as we bid a not-so-fond farewell to DRM, we close with a parting question for all the: “Was all the bad press really worth it?”

Answer to be seen.


News! Media Violence Turns Criminals Into Big Babies!

“Does Movie Violence Decrease Violent Crime?” was some freaky talk of the town last week. This is the most Punk idea I’ve seen yet. A study that inspired an article in the NY Times that says, and don’t laugh, “Economists Say Movie Violence Might Temper the Real Thing” and was conducted by two economists; it isn’t a psychiatric or medical study. Not too juicy in the end. But it is pretty funny! And it goes to show that any major corporation (moviemakers in this case) can lobby any real science into helping them prove a bizarre, albeit farfetched and stretched-to-the-limit, point.

Bottom line – some geniuses are using the new freakonomics (a word now…) to prove that yes, if you are a bad person who watches killings and rapes and muggings and the like, you will calm yourself from doing them – at least for a while. Really now.

“Economists Say Movie Violence Might Temper the Real Thing” (Pieces Of The Article)

The study’s authors acknowledge that their research does not refute and in fact lends credence to the findings of laboratory studies. Neither does it address the long-term effects of exposure to violent media, an influence they view as pernicious.

Rather, the research uses a decade of national crime reports, cinema ratings and movie audience data to examine what has happened to rates of violent crime during and immediately after violent films are shown.

Though such films may indeed stimulate a greater tendency toward aggression in audiences, the bigtime economist offers a rejoinder much favored by economists: Compared to what?

Young men are the most likely to commit violent crimes. In opting to see a movie — even one featuring, say, gang rape or chain-saw amputation — they forgo activities that have a greater tendency to encourage mayhem, like drinking and drug use.

“Economics is about choice,” he said. “What would these people have done if they had not chosen to go and see a movie? Whatever they would have done would have had a greater tendency to involve alcohol. If you can incapacitate a large group of potentially violent people, that’s a good thing.”

“It’s not as if these people watching violent movies would otherwise be home reading a book.”
Their entire study is super long, but I cut out a few choice snippets:

In this paper, we provide causal evidence on the short-run effect of media violence on violent crime. We exploit the natural experiment induced by time-series variation in the violence of movies shown in the theater. As in the psychology experiments, we estimate the short-run effect of exposure to violence, but unlike in the experiments, the outcome variable is violent crime rather than aggressiveness. Importantly, the laboratory and field setups also differ due to self-selection and to the context of violent media exposure. Using a violence rating system from kids-in-mind.com and daily revenue data, we generate a daily measure of box office audience for strongly violent (e.g., “Hannibal”), mildly violent (e.g., “Spider-Man”), and non-violent movies (e.g., “Runaway Bride”). Since blockbuster movies differ significantly in violence rating, and movie sales are concentrated in the initial weekends after release, there is substantial variation in exposure to movie violence over time.

The audience for strongly violent and mildly violent movies, respectively, is as high as 12 million and 25 million people on some weekends, and is close to zero on others (see Figures 1a-1b). We use crime data from the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and measure violent crime on a given day as the sum of reported assaults (simple or aggravated) and intimidation. We find no evidence that exposure to media violence increases violent behavior in the short-run.

After controlling flexibly for seasonality, we find that, on days with a high audience for violent movies, violent crime is lower. To rule out unobserved factors that contemporaneously increase movie attendance and decrease violence, such as rainy weather, we use two strategies.

First, we add controls for weather and days with high TV viewership. Second, and most importantly, we instrument for movie audience using the predicted movie audience based on the following weekend’s audience. This instrumental variable strategy exploits the predictability of the weekly decrease in attendance. Adding in controls and instrumenting, the correlation between movie violence and violent crime becomes more negative and remains statistically significant.

The estimated effect of exposure to violent movies is small in the morning or afternoon hours (6AM-6PM), when movie attendance is minimal. In the evening hours (6PM-12AM), instead, we detect a significant negative effect on crime. For each million people watching a strongly or mildly violent movie, respectively, violent crimes decrease by 1.3 and 1.1 percent. The effect is smaller and statistically insignificant for non-violent movies. In the nighttime hours following the movie showing (12AM-6AM), the delayed effect of exposure to movie violence is even more negative. For each million people watching a strongly or mildly violent movie, respectively, violent crime decreases by 1.9 and 2.1 percent. Non-violent movies have no statistically significant impact. Unlike in the psychology experiments, therefore, media violence appears to decrease violent behavior in the immediate aftermath of exposure, with large aggregate effects. The total net effect of violent movies is to decrease assaults by roughly 1,000 occurrences per weekend, for an annual total of about 52,000 weekend assaults prevented.

We also examine the delayed impact of exposure to movie violence on violent crime. While our research design (like the laboratory designs) cannot test for a long-run impact, we can examine the medium-run impact in the days and weeks following exposure. We find no impact on violent crime on Monday and Tuesday following weekend movie exposure. We also find no impact one, two, and three weeks after initial exposure, controlling for current exposure. This implies that the same-day decrease in crime is unlikely to be due to intertemporal substitution of crime from the following days.

While reading about the studies, I learned there’s actually a DVD player that automatically deletes all the juicy bits of movies. It’s a Mormon device.

It was invented four years ago, I read online yesterday–a trend I had no idea about: “What the world really needs now is more uptight little companies from Utah that will help us all block out the random messy naked blood n’ guts of the world. Companies that will, without anyone asking them to, protect us from media evildoers and exposed flesh and scary exploding things and that part in ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ wherein the universe is blessed, for the briefest of moments, with … Kate Winslet’s nipples.

…Utah-based ClearPlay, a shrill little corporation that has taken it upon itself to sit around the cube farm all day and watch countless Hollywood flicks and zap out any and all icky violent suggestive material in, say, “Lost In Translation.” For your protection. How kind.”

What is ClearPlay?

Great question! ClearPlay is a fancy DVD Player that can play regular DVD movies — but without profanity, violence and nudity.

Wow! How does that work?

It’s really quite ingenious. We create filtering information on a movie by movie basis, and then put those “filters” into the DVD player. This way, the DVD player knows when to skip or mute while the movie is playing.

But isn’t it choppy?

Nope. That’s the great thing about the ClearPlay service. We love movies just as much as you do, so we take great care to maintain the presentation quality of the movie– the only thing gone is “that one scene” you wish the kids never saw.

What about new movies?

Another great question! If you sign up for a ClearPlay Membership then we provide constant updates for your DVD player. This way ClearPlay works with new movies as they come out. It is really just that simple (and cool!).

Me again. The above was from their site. I’m wondering if parents do anything for their kids anymore. Besides cut their meat, of course.

Have you heard nuff? Go out and watch some gorey movies, kids, and I’ll see you on the street.


An open letter from the on-demand generation

Here is an editorial written by a college student who is one of four winners of this Fall Semester’s Weekender College Edition contest, and which brilliantly encapsulates what it means to be a young adult consumer in the new media lansape. This and the other three winning entrants can be seen on www.cynopsis.com

“An Open Letter From The On-Demand Generation:
by Michael Krepack, Senior/New York University, Major: Entertainment, Media & Technology

We, the On-Demand Generation, would like to respectfully inform you that the future of TV is here. No longer will we be bullied into watching TV on your time. Welcome to a new era: “Appointment TV” is now “Instant TV.”

We’re well aware that today’s media landscape is rapidly changing, but for those of us in the On-Demand Generation our lifeblood necessitates consuming content in myriad platforms. We read The New York Times online; we scan YouTube for the latest viral videos; we download music from the iTunes Store. We require one thing: instant gratification.

Yet, you insist on distributing content the old fashion way (especially you, the five major broadcasting networks, you’re on notice). Granted, you have begun to embrace new media (mobisodes anyone?) and made some inroads in distributing your TV shows online (and, from what we garner from the WGA strike, at a financial loss), but you’re selling us short.

While you toil developing the right platform to deliver your content (as if there has to be one correct method), the era of “Primetime TV” has vanished just as fast as Viva Laughlin! Until we take over as gatekeepers, we request you give us what we want, when we want it. How about embracing, instead of admonishing time-shifted viewing?

As we shy further away from the TV dinner programming schedule, take a page out of the Pay-TV playbook - repurpose your shows on an on-demand platform. Create a world where each broadcast channel has its own on-demand channel where full episodes of shows appear alongside made-for-demand programming.

In terms of a revenue source, why not charge a monthly premium for subscribers? Then again, you could make it free and tack-on commercials in the same vain you do now for shows online (just air them in HD, please).

This new interactive TV connects you with us. Directly. Adapt or lose. The On-Demand Generation is here to stay. Armed with our DVRs, iPods and Slingboxes we are loud, proud and always tuned on.

Sincerely Yours,
The On-Demand Generation
Sent Via iPhone, while watching TV on the iPhone”