Muti-tasking with multiple media: A way of life

The concept of multi-tasking isn't new. Just ask any homemaker and you'll learn a lot about juggling many tasks at once. And, multi-tasking with media, that is watching TV while eating, for example, isn't terribly new either. That's why in the 50s they called it the TV dinner! What is relatively new, however, is multi-tasking with multiple media. I did a study that you can access here on this topic in 2005 that concluded:

"..eating is the most common activity followed by socializing, doing chores and dressing. Although it is speculative, this may indicate a shift toward more individualized or private consumption of media. One can imagine, for example, an individual alone in their bedroom where the television and computer are likely to be located eating while engaged in multiple media-centered activities. This study found that males are significantly more likely than females to use multiple media and to play video or computer games. However, females are likely to engage in physical activities or write while the television is on. Although there are gender differences regarding particular activities, it may be that both males and females are moving toward more solitary uses of multiple media."

The kind of isolation we experience that I describe in the study was echoed during our class discussion in which several students noted they sit around their dorms with their roommates, each with a laptop and the TV going in the background (sometimes the foreground - my study also delves into the issue of shifting attention back and forth between media). More important, they described a lack of direct communication that takes place between them. In class we expressed a kind of sadness regarding this shift away from the social toward the solitary. Interesting, I think, is that while males and females may engage in different sorts of multi-tasking with multiple media, there is little difference when it comes to the solitary nature of their experience.

What has all this wrought? A review in The Wall Street Journal (1/30/09, p. A11) of a new book, Snark, by David Denby, defines snark as "low, mean, annoying, philistine, dreadful, coarse, lazy, second-rate and slightly unclean language." Remember the snarky dialogue in the movie Juno? Snark is, in my opinion, a kind of short-hand utilized by those within an increasing smaller circle who "get it." From a cultural perspective, you are either "in" or you are "out" of the culture. I raise the specter of possibility that it could become a circle of one. Do I really want to blame the coarseness of our language on multi-tasking with multiple media? Perhaps that's going too far. But does it play a role? Perhaps.

The implications of the social isolation we are experiencing are great. As we lose our ability to speak to one another, social convention and etiquette with regard to social interaction goes by the way-side. What happens to a society that no longer knows how to communicate with one another in a direct manner? As one student in the class noted, there has been a significant increase in multi-tasking with multiple media since she came to college three years ago. It's difficult to imagine where the trend will take us and at what point the system begins to break down, causing some to participate in a backlash in which people begin to actually talk directly to one another, with civility.

image courtesy of: http://www.wordle.net/.

Pre-gaming the Super Bowl Ads

You know what the term pre-gaming refers to, but that's not how I'm using it in this blog post, well, not exactly. I'm using the term pre-gaming in the sense that I believe advertisers are metaphorically trying to make you "drunk" with their ads before the ads air during the upcoming Super Bowl. How are they doing this? In recent years, advertisers have learned to become more efficient with their advertising expenditures. After all, does anyone really think $3 million for a 30 second ad is worth it? Perhaps if you calculate the value based on CPM it may constitute an effective "reach" if the audience is large enough. But exposure does not equal effectiveness, as consumers don't necessarily pay close attention to television advertising, even the Super Bowl ads. My favorite example of this phenomenon relates to the results of the day-after recall surveys that oftentimes indicate that consumers mistake a brand like Tostitos for Doritos, even though it is the latter that is paying the big bucks for the Super Bowl ad. So, how do advertisers defend against this? Extending the relationship beyond exposure to the 30 second TV commercial is one way of engaging the consumer in an experience that I'm calling pre-gaming. The pre-gaming to which I refer to involves multiple opportunities for consumers to deepen their experience with a brand, product or service. Doritos stands out for its consumer generated advertising (CGA) effort. But other corporations, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal, are engaging in this tactic: Pedigree dog food, E*Trade, Cars.com, Pepsi's SoBe, and CareerBuilder.com, among others. Opportunities abound this year to engage with the brand on perhaps a deeper level and in a more sustained way.

I attempt to do similar things in my courses: provide experiences that extend our learning community beyond the classroom. Think about the numerous ways we "engage" this semester on Netvibes the course aggregator, the Wetpaint Wiki, and the blog sites. I know students are often distracted during class, this is particularly so when we convene in a computer lab where, instead of focusing on the work at hand, students send email, text-message, and of course, check out their Facebook page. Did I mention day-dreaming? For me, utilizing social software is an attempt--my experiment--to engage students beyond the classroom (the classroom is s-o-o-o 20th Century). Learning through contextual experiences, and participating in simulations are alternative ways to create and maintain a learning community. You'll let me know how well this works in our class by the end of the semester.

The Super Bowl extravaganza takes place in a much shorter time frame, so the intensity and forcefulness of the engagement must be up to the task. I've got a little more time. Advertisers want you to engage with their brand, knowing that 30 seconds isn't enough time to do so. Water-cooler talk that takes place the day after the game (post-gaming) helpful in extending the experience of the brand, but interactive websites, games, contests and other on-line activities are more immersive. In this way education and advertising have something in common: we both want you to pay attention, engage deeply with our content, and learn something as a result of the experience. I hope what I'm doing appeals to a higher cause; marketers just want you to buy a six-pack.

Pre-gaming is a way for consumers to deeply engage with brands, products and services through their interactions on web sites and through social media. For those of you who are considering imbibing alcohol prior to the Super Bowl, I offer this alternative. Pre-game with the brands and all the engaging activities marketers have to offer. Fat chance.

The Intersection of Pop Culture and Economics: Lil' Wayne & AT&T

Often times we look at the economic function of pop culture, but fail to look at the cultural economy, which refers to the ways in which we circulate meanings. The latter is more of a symbolic function. It’s often difficult to separate the cultural from the economic as they have become increasingly intertwined in our postmodern society. For example, we tend to judge the success of a movie based on the revenue it garnered during a particular week or several week period. As such we avoid discussing aesthetics (associated meanings); rather, it’s all about the money. In a capitalist economy, we shouldn’t be surprised by such a close connection between the two: culture and finance. Having said that, aesthetics seems to take a back seat to the economics of pop culture. Perhaps in our contemporary culture it’s too difficult to judge something as good or bad; such concepts seem to have lost their meaning, especially when audiences are so fractured - good for whom and bad for whom? And so when it comes to pop music the connections between culture and commerce run deep. Last week I wrote about Bruce Springsteen’s massive effort to promote his new album. Tonight AT&T and Lil’ Wayne are teaming up to stream live material from his new album. Traditional means of promotion no longer exist (spectacle is the only way to get noticed), and when one company so dominates the radio airwaves, it’s difficult unless approved by the programming committee, for artists to break through the barriers. So pop music becomes integrated into other forms; what we might refer to in pop culture studies as “intertextuality”: a pop song becomes the "bed" in a product commercial.

At first, I thought AT&T and Lil’ Wayne made strange bedfellows, until I remembered that until 2001, AT&T was one of the largest distributors of pornography in the country (In 2001, under pressure, they sold that business to Comcast). Lil’ Wayne is incredibly popular: he’s everywhere it seems. But Lil’ Wayne’s music is coarse by any standards, and he continues a legacy of misogyny. I admit this is my two-generation removed assessment, and so I recognize it doesn’t hold much meaning or significance. I know that many listeners don’t pay attention to the lyrics, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t available for those who want to take a closer look. The song Lillipop, is a good example: rife with language that debases women. If most people don’t listen to the lyrics, does that mean there is no meaning? Perhaps not. I have argued for a while that meaning has given way to something else – experience. And, experience can be meaningful or not. So the question isn’t: is Lil’ Wayne’s music good or bad, but how do you experience that music? We’ve also learned that it isn’t the lyrics themselves that convey meaning, in the case of AT&T, a certain validation comes along with the live webcast of Lil’ Wayne’s new work (what we call "text in context"). One could argue that AT&T’s target audience is one that purchases a lot of wireless service, and so the connection is fitting. But in sponsoring the live streaming performance, the corporation is, again, displaying a certain hegemony over a culture that is rife with contradiction.

Where politics and pop culture meet

Perhaps you saw Bruce Springsteen’s performance on the Mall in D.C. this weekend as the spectacle unfolded surrounding the inauguration of Barak Obama, the 44th president of the United States. The pre-inaugural concert represented a continuing and growing phenomenon: Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, and Beyonce, among others joined an ever-growing interconnection between pop culture and politics (check out the song America's Song by Wil.I.am and David Foster available from Oprah as a free download). For the political part, Springsteen’s presence was a demonstration of his support for working class values. Indeed, such values are consistent with the populist values of our new president. The intersection between President Obama’s political values and Springsteen’s working class values is an easy one to consume. Together their ideas create a hegemonic force that we might expect to filter through the culture. However, culture doesn’t do its work so simply. Once a big idea is put forth, it tends to take on a life of its own. In the process, it is up to individual consumers (the words consumer and citizen have in this postmodern era become somewhat synonymous) to twist and turn such ideas in ways that work within an individual's identity management. What I’m suggesting here is that ideas--political and otherwise--cannot be imposed from above. We participate in the dynamic production of culture. Not to get too romantic about it, but it is empowering to think about the role we as individuals play in the making and remaking culture.

The political presence of Bruce Springsteen is easy to understand, but his role in the pop culture industries is a little more complicated. To the point: in this day of downloading, how does an artist sell CDs? Springsteen has a new album that is going to be released next week. Several pop stars (including Springsteen) have “sold out” to Wal-Mart offering exclusive distribution rights to the retailer. Others have “sold out” to advertisers; in one instance the pop singer Sting appeared in an automobile commercial in order to hawk a new album. Yet others have decided, like Radio Head, to give their music away in hope that, in the long run, they will attract more paying customers.

Springsteen’s appearance at the pre-inauguration ceremonies was part of a managed mega-spectacle in which he will next appear during the half-time show at the Super Bowl, and he will appear on one of the upcoming awards shows, given that one of his songs is featured in the movie, The Wrestler (which, by the way, I enjoyed immensely). In addition, starting in March, he will embark on a tour with his band. It has been reported that his last tour earned over $200 million. B-r-u-c-e is big. And when a pop star is that big, she or he must do something really big in order to command our attention. In this age of inattention, perhaps the only way to “break through the clutter,” as they say in advertising, is to create spectacles or participate in spectacles that are so large, we cannot turn away. In this way, at least as pop music goes, Springsteen is a hegemonic force. Personally, I don’t buy working-class ideologies from a guy worth millions of dollars. I guess that makes me a counter-hegemonic force, although that may be a bit grandiose on my part. This blog post did, however, give me the opportunity to work in some terms we’ve been discussing in class.

High Culture/Pop Culture: Who cares about the difference?

I’ve been humming the tune to Samuel Barber’s symphonic piece Adagio for strings, which features a haunting melody. The Baltimore Symphony Orchestra performs the version I have on my IPod, and if I wanted to see the piece performed, I would likely attend a concert at a symphony hall. Symphony halls, historically, are not exactly what we might think of as a pop culture venue. Indeed, one would likely assign Samuel Barber’s symphonic piece to the level of high culture. But wait a minute, as I imagine the music, I could overlay the images of the Baltimore Ravens losing to the Pittsburgh Steelers in the AFC division playoffs. But really, if you are a fan of Vietnam War era movies, you might recognize the piece from Oliver Stone's movie, Platoon. I will never forget the images of William Defoe’s bullet riddled body collapsing to the haunting melody of Adagio. Well, movies aren't high culture, they’re pop culture. So what happens when high culture becomes pop culture? I’m reminded of Aaron Copeland’s modern symphonic piece Rodeo that I also have on my IPod. But you might recognize part of that piece of classical music, Hoedown, from the “What’s for Dinner: Beef” commercial. Again, the use of classical music in a television commercial represents the melding of high culture and pop culture. Have you ever seen paintings by Andy Warhol? You know, the ones with the Campbell soup cans. Historically, fine art would have been associated with high art and therefore high culture. So, what happens when fine art is mixed with pop culture, as is the case with an Andy Warhol painting? The mixing of high and pop is a function of our post-modern existence where the lines of difference are blurred, in this case, rendering the difference between high and pop meaningless. The cultural studies approach we take in this course is less concerned with “High” (literary, elitist) and “low” (trashy, banal) culture distinctions. Rather the approach we take does not prejudice one “text” as better (high) or worse (low) than another. Lack of concern for such differences allows us to focus on other things: the social production and reproduction of media content (what we as consumers do with media content and how we reintegrate it into our everyday lives). Furthermore, we are concerned with power and the struggle against that power (resistance) evident in media content and expressed by users of media content. That’s why race, gender, class, ethnicity and national strata are important to the study of pop culture.

If I were a boy...

I haven’t blogged on this site for quite some time, however, that doesn’t mean I haven’t been blogging. I just went underground, or more to the point, I confined my blogging to the Blackboard website we utilize in my pop culture course. I’ve decided to hand over that blog to students in the pop culture class, and I will return to blogging on this site. So, I’ve been thinking about what I want to write about as I reintroduce this blog. Because of my interest in gender studies—in particular my research on masculine gender identity—I could not help being struck by the gender issues addressed in Beyonce’s new song “If I were a boy.” Indeed the title is quite telling as it is based on a contradiction: Beyonce physically cannot be a boy (well, that’s not wholly true, I know). But for all intent and purpose what she demonstrates by declaring, “If I were a boy,” is empathy for the “other.” This reminds me of a totally unrelated song by Shania Twain – “Man, I feel like a Woman.” Empathy is traditionally a feminine trait, and so the song sets up the listener (or reader of the lyrics) to see what deconstructionists refer to as a binary opposition: women are empathic/men are stoic. It is the space between these two variables—empathy and stoicism—that culture does it work. You can check out the full set of lyrics on any number of web sites. Below, I go over them and provide my considered opinion of what I think they mean. I fully recognize that meanings are variable, and so I expect that you (the reader) may interpret the lyrics differently. That difference, hopefully, will become the point of discussion:

When Beyonce begins the song she declares, “If I were a boy…Even just for a day,” she is pointing out that her voyage into gender switching is temporary. She can, however, walk—metaphorically speaking—in a boy’s shoes. In this way she demonstrate her ability to empathize—if only for a short period of time—with the “other.” By raising the point about being a boy or acting like a boy, if only for a day, opens up the question: what does it mean to be a boy? Implicit in that question is a further one: What does it mean to be a man? The difference between the two is where the cultural play begins. What’s the listener—at least the one that’s paying attention to the lyrics (and I readily admit few people do)--to do?

So, when Beyonce continues to sing, “I’d roll outta bed in the morning…And throw on what I wanted then go” she is suggesting that boys don’t have to take responsibility: they can wear what they want; and, they don’t have to please anyone else. She continues this line of thinking when she sings, “Drink beer with the guys,” which is a hallmark of masculinity – (not just the beer drinking, I’m referring to camaraderie). Take away camaraderie from men and they are like isolated animals.

Boys are socially powerful, as Beyonce sings: “And chase after girls…I’d kick it with who I wanted…” This suggests that boys can be the aggressor. Implied in this binary is that girls are passive participants as it is boys who get to “kick it.” Furthermore, the line, “And I’d never get confronted for it. Cause they’d stick up for me” indicates that boys can “hook up” without responsibility and boys are unimpeded due to the protection and camaraderie of other guys.

So, in the chorus, when Beyonce sings, “If I were a boy…I think I could understand…How it feels to love a girl…I swear I’d be a better man,” she is positioning herself as one who understands relationships – a characteristic that is traditionally feminine. Also, to “be a better man” also means, not to be a boy. We, again, see that binary: boys (irresponsible) vs. men (responsible). This is echoed in the next refrain: “I’d listen to her…Cause I know how it hurts…When you lose the one you wanted…Cause he’s taken you for granted…And everything you had got destroyed.” Simply put, what it means to be a man, in Beyonce’s view, is to be empathic. In other words, men have to operate within traditional feminine boundaries; otherwise they are acting like boys.

The song continues….”If I were a boy, I could turn off my phone. Tell everyone it’s broken, So they’d think that I was sleepin’ alone. I’d put myself first. And make the rules as I go. Cause I know that she’d be faithful. Waitin’ for me to come home (to come home).” In this verse Beyonce describes how the “boy” may seek the camaraderie and protection of others, but a man will jettison himself from the pack. In isolation, the man can act responsibly, in this case offering empathy and staying faithful.

In this verse the boy has crossed her: “It’s a little too late for you to come back. Say it’s just a mistake. Think I’d forgive you like that. If you thought I would wait for you. You thought wrong. And, Beyonce is not in a forgiving mood. Perhaps there’s too much social and psychological pressure for the boy to act like a man. So, Beyonce then laments in the chorus: “But you’re just a boy. You don’t understand.” This confirms her belief that boys will be boys. And, this position is amplified when she declares, “Yeah you don’t understand…How it feels to love a girl someday,” that as she stated at the beginning of the song, boys lack the ability to be empathic.

We’re not sure when Beyonce sings, “You wish you were a better man” whether she believes the “boy” can indeed be a man or whether she concedes that, as I said before, boys will be boys. We also might raise the question what does it mean to be a better mean? What does it mean to be a lesser man? Is a lesser man a boy?

Beyonce is confirming her original position when she declares: “You don’t listen to her. You don’t care how it hurts. Until you lose the one you wanted. Cause you’ve taken her for granted. And everything you have got destroyed. The ending of the song suggests that it is only through personal loss that the boy will learn to be a man. Perhaps it is only through the trauma of loss that change is forged. In the end, she sings, “But you’re just a boy.” Conclusion: you’re not a man.

One of the things I like about Beyonce’s “If I were a boy” is the larger shape shifting in which she is engaged. Not only is Beyonce transformational in this song, the album from which it comes is titled, I am Sasha Fierce, her alter ego. In this way Beyonce is signaling that she is not one thing. This ability to shape-shift oneself is a hallmark of postmodern existence. Madonna is the master at this pop culture game. So there you have it…my first post on this blog in quite a while and a short interpretation of Beyonce’s song, “If I were a Boy.” It’s a place to begin a discussion about the work that pop culture does and the work we do with it.

Why called it Imaginary Social Worlds

Perhaps I should start by explaining the title of this blog – Imaginary Social Worlds. It’s a term that I borrowed from John Caughey who coined the term in the early 1980s. The basic idea behind an imaginary social relationship is that we engage with media figures in ways that parallel actual social relationships. We also engage with media content as we build out the cultural context of our imaginary world. Critics do not like to think about the amount of time we spend “inside,” as we live in an action-oriented Western culture – no time for daydreaming. Caughey wrote his book at a time when the personal computer was just emerging; there was no Internet. It seems to me that we spend an inordinate amount of time interacting with media and with people that we don’t know or don’t know well (consider the “friends” you have on Facebook). Social networking through social media is all the rage today, and so Caughey’s idea is amplified in ways we could not have imagined. I write about imaginary social relationships in my book, Advertising in Everyday Life. And, as a scholar I continue to look not only at what the mainstream pundits refers to as social networking through social media, but I also consider the social “world” that is inside our head. It is a world populated by places, things and people that to some extent are out of the media – movies, TV (news and entertainment), the Internet, among others. I think it is worthwhile, as others look at the exterior world, they this blog spend some time and effort focusing on the interior world of the individual and how we utilize the content of media in order to make sense of our place in society.