A friend of mine turned me on (buh dum tish) to Sir Richard's condoms the other night. And by turned me on to them, I mean he showed me their website as we snacked on chips and guac (this is a PG blog that my parents read). It's such a great example of doing it differently, I just had to post about it.
Sir Richard's condoms follow the buy one, give one business model - altruistic consumerism made popular by Blake Mycoskie and his simple canvas shoes. For every condom you buy, Sir Richard's will donate a condom to a country in need. Priced only a bit higher than your drug store variety, Sir Richard's boxes are only sold online or in retailers like Paul Smith and Fred Segal. One look at the package design and you know it's the perfect fit.
Furthermore, the condoms are vegan. Read that again. Apparently, most latex condoms are made with casein, a protein derived from milk. I wasn't aware that vegans cared about things they don't eat being vegan, but there are dozens of vegan condom brands, so what do I know?
My main point is that Sir Richard's does condoms differently. In a marketing category full of ads about maximum pleasure and satisfaction, Sir Richard's breaks through the clutter with their "doing good" angle. It essentially likens sex to an altruistic act. It's not only you and your partner's health and pleasure you are worrying about, it's someone in need's as well.
My friend Evan sent me this amazing video a couple days ago. It's a must-watch. To see Katie Couric and Bryant Gumbel asking what the Internet is back in 1994 is too good. It reminds us of an inconceivable time - a time without the Internet. We feel like we can't live without it, and that it's such a huge part of all aspects of our lives. And yet, here is proof of a time before Google, before email, IMs, and Facebook. It's akin to seeing footage or images of life before automobiles or electricity.
Couric and Gumbel clearly weren't on the cutting edge of technology when this video was shot. But can we really define what the Internet is, even today? If you were trying to explain the Internet to an alien, what would you say? The explanation of, "it's a giant computer network," just doesn't cut it anymore. Unlike cars or light bulbs, the Internet is this nebulous concept that encompasses so much. And now add apps, the cloud, and opensource. The video reminded me of the Can you draw the Internet? project I wrote about in the past. See creatives and kids' artistic interpretations of the Internet here.
It's amazing that something so vital to our lives can be so slippery to define.
I had dinner with some relatives who are in town tonight, and the topic of K-Town came up. For those who've yet to catch wind of the show, it's essentially an Asian version of Jersey Shore, centered around LA's bumping Koreatown. It's still making its way through the production process, but given the success of Jersey Shore, I've little doubt that it will make it to air.
I've heard mixed reactions from the Asian American community. Some lament the small, not-so-savory subset of Asians that are represented (check out the cast reel above. 'Roided out Asian ballers! Asian hoochie mamas!). Others see any representation in main stream media to be a step in the right direction. Plus, while perhaps not so flattering, the K-Town cast blows the stereotypes about quiet, meek, nerdy Asians out of the water.
Which raises the question - what would the ideal representation of Asians be? Certainly not the studious, TI-89 wielding, never been kissed one. But also not the hot mess, belligerently drunk one. Why are we stuck with such extremes? (Aside from the easy answer - it makes for better TV.)
What Jersey Shore did was to shine the spotlight on a pre-existing, yet not widely known sliver of Italian Americans. Now everyone knows what a guido is, what the characteristics of a guidette are. And while we laugh and marvel at their antics, deep down we know that not all Italian Americans, and to a lesser extent, not all residents of the Jersey Shore, are like that.
Is it safe to assume that the same will be true for K-Town? What makes it tricky is that there are so many other representations of Caucasians on TV that balance out the Jersey Shore. K-Town will be one of very few representations of Asians (MXC anyone?) in mainstream media. Time will tell whether the show is a regression, or a step forward.
I received a rare 365 Plan request from a friend the other day, and the topic is too good. The email pointed me to Google's Ad Preferences page, where you can see which interests and inferred demographics Google has associated with your cookie. Basically, what categories of ads Google shows you based on sites that you visit.
Here are my friend's categories: Arts & Entertainment Arts & Entertainment - Entertainment Industry - Film & TV Awards Arts & Entertainment - Movies Arts & Entertainment - Movies - Superhero Films Arts & Entertainment - Music & Audio - Jazz & Blues - Jazz Arts & Entertainment - Performing Arts Arts & Entertainment - Performing Arts - Dance Arts & Entertainment - TV & Video - TV Shows & Programs Arts & Entertainment - TV & Video - TV Reality Shows Beauty & Fitness - Fashion & Style - Fashion Designers & Collections Books & Literature - Magazines Law & Government - Government - Legislative Branch News - Politics World Localities - North America - USA - Mid-Atlantic (USA)- New York City Demographics - Gender - Male
Here's the thing - my friend is female.
Thus, the issue is raised. Can anyone really make such inferences on gender? Gone are the days where girls = dolls, pink, marriage, baking, and boys = fire trucks, blue, briefcases and sports. What about my friend's list (which, by the way, is weirdly inaccurate in some ways - politics [I love that it gets as specific as Legislative Branch], superhero films, and jazz and blues don't belong) made Google's algorithm (algorithm = science, right?) conclude that she was a he?
Here's my list: Arts & Entertainment Arts & Entertainment - Celebrities & Entertainment News Arts & Entertainment - Comics & Animation - Comics Arts & Entertainment - TV & Video - Online Video Arts & Entertainment - TV & Video - TV Commercials Arts & Entertainment - TV & Video - TV Networks & Stations Business & Industrial - Advertising & Marketing Internet & Telecom - Email & Messaging News - Gossip & Tabloid News Online Communities - Blogging Resources & Services Online Communities - Social Networks Pets & Animals Pets & Animals - Wildlife Reference - Geographic Reference - City & Local Guides Shopping - Toys
Other than a few outliers (Shopping - Toys? Pets & Animals - Wildlife...I don't watch that many cute animal videos), it's pretty accurate. Heavy on the advertising, media, social networking side with some arts & entertainment thrown in. It's also a very utilitarian list - Email & Messaging (Gmail), Blogging Resources (Blogger), Geographic Reference (Yelp and GMaps about three times a day). I'm proud that Comics & Animation made the cut, but not so much that Gossip & Tabloids did. But notice - no gender assumption. For whatever reason, Google has not yet assigned me a gender based on my categories. Unisex, much?
It makes sense why Google would want to determine the gender of a user. You don't want to be showing dudes ads for tampons, and women banners for Gillette Mach 17, or whatever number they're on now. Valuable dollars were spent to assure that the ads were placed in front of the right eyeballs. But the methodology for figuring out who is he or she is confusingly sexist. Read about another shemale (extra points if you get the reference) here.
And yet, I'm struggling to think of a better way to make that call. Would a direct, one-time survey be more accurate, but more intrusive? Google's computers quietly make the call, often behind the scenes, in order to enhance our Internet experience (and very soon, our real life experiences...but more on that another day). But as a result, they're sometimes wrong. What, then, is the best balance between accuracy and intrusiveness?
Here's my favorite part. If you go to your own Google Ad Preferences page, you'll see by each category a link to "Remove" it. Further down the page, you can select categories to be included. Essentially, you can tailor Google to who YOU think you are, instead of who they think you are (though, no promises that they won't keep updating the list based on your browsing habits). A rare case of power of people over the algorithm.
I'm dying to know what gender assumptions Google made about you, especially if it's incorrect. I'm always wary of asking for readers to respond to a call to action, because people feel bad for me when I'm left hanging. If you're shy, you can email your answer to me at natalieyoungkim(at)gmail.com. Thanks for reading all that.
Whew. The One Photo Every Hour exercise was harder than I thought. Maybe today was extra busy, but the hours were just flying by and I felt like I was constantly scrambling to get my picture in. But hopefully the set paints a nice picture of my day. For those just tuning in, check out my set up post.
7:45AM Alarm goes off. I have this terrible habit of checking my email on my phone as soon as I wake up. At my old job this used to spike my stress levels while still in bed. These days, it's mostly force of (bad) habit.
8:30AM My getting ready station next to my mirror. When I was little, I used to love looking at all of my mom's makeup, bottles of this and that lined up on her vanity counter. I think that's why I keep so much stuff, but use so little.
9:05AM On my way to the subway station. How beautiful is the snow?
10:44AM Part of my desk. It's tricky taking pictures at work, because of confidentiality. This is a fairly innocuous corner though. The rest of it follows suit, and is covered in reading and notes. At this point I also realized the challenge of snapping interesting pics for all the hours I'm at the office.
11:20AM Ran a quick errand close to the office, and took a picture to show just how much snow fell last night.
12:45PM Picking up Le Pain Quotidien for lunch with a coworker. I usually eat what's provided at the office, so today was a little splurge. It was too pretty to stay inside.
1:54PM The view from the office. I don't sit by a window, but it's nice to look down once in awhile.
2:55PM The remains of red velvet cake carnage in the kitchen. (Reminds me of Jim Gaffigan's bit on cake.)
3:45PM My lifesaver Hunter boots. The only thing I'll wear if there's snow on the ground. The only problem is once you're inside, they get a little clunky. But they're perfect for stomping around in the snow. Which is all I wanted to do today.
4:30PM This is a great representation of my day, because I feel like I'm constantly snacking at work. Frequency is positively correlated with stress levels. Today was an apple day, so it couldn't have been that bad.
5:50PM Perusing Mashable, PSFK, AgencySpy, etc.
6:58PM Almost didn't make this picture within the hour! Waiting for the 6 train to take me home. I love the whoosh of air that gets pushed by the approaching train.
7:25PM Met a friend at The New Museum (conveniently close to my place) for their free admission night.
8:50PM My home office pod. I have a ton of those neat postcard takeaways to add to the wall, just haven't. Yet. Looks a little bare from this view.
9:25PM Eyes out. Glasses on.
10:45PM Some time with Time Out New York. It's so overwhelming how much there is to do here. I'm really good at circling things I want to check out, but less good at following through.
11:30PM A little bit of reading before bed. I've been really into short story compilations recently - bite-sized lit for low commitment reading. Would usually read until around midnight or so, but had to save time to post these pics before 12AM!
I highly encourage anyone who enjoyed looking at these to try the exercise themselves. It might seem like your day is boring and not noteworthy, but it's what you choose to represent your day that makes it interesting.
I'm at a complete and utter loss of what to write about today, so instead, I'll use this post to set up tomorrow's.
Tomorrow I'll be performing the One Photo Every Hour exercise. Basically, I'll be taking one photo every hour from the time I get until I go to bed. In the end I'll have a reflection of a typical day in the life of me. And by limiting it to one photo per hour, it will allow me to examine what (and what isn't) noteworthy.
I'll post all the pictures tomorrow night before bed. I encourage everyone to try it themselves - it's a nice little self-reflection exercise. It lets you step back and look at your life from a more zoomed out perspective. Just bring a digital camera along with you, or use your smartphone. Easy peasy.
Waiting to see if you got into that college you wanted. Or for test results. Wondering whether or not that cute guy has a girlfriend. When you're in relationship limbo, somewhere between still together and broken up. The reason why a friend stops talking to you. Sometimes, even bad news is welcome, just so that the not knowing part ends.
It's the not knowing that sends our brains into a tailspin. It releases our imagination to a myriad of scenarios. We over think, over analyze, and work ourselves into an anxious knot.
(Mini aside - On a related note, I posted an emo status this afternoon with one person in mind. Social media worked its magic and I instantly received warm messages and emails from (other) people who thought I was just being emo in general. It was a great reminder that a) social media is a broadcast, and not the best vehicle for targeting, and b) that I have truly great friends out there who care.
I deleted the status, so as to avoid any further confusion. Thanks to all who sent love - rest assured, I'm quite happy these days.)
(Completely unrelated photo from The Cool Hunter. New York artist Tom Fruin’s outdoor sculpture Kolonihavehus in the plaza of the Royal Danish Library in Copenhagen.)
Hey Millennials - do your thoughts ever take the form of status updates? Sometimes when I'm walking home from the train, I'll think about my day as potential tweets or status updates, editing in my head (that's so sad to admit). Maybe it's the wannabe writer in me, but it always takes a wee bit of crafting. It's not even that I'm super active on social media, but when I do, I'm not the type of person who can just throw up a status on a whim.
It's no secret that we live in a broadcast culture, a bite-sized sharing culture. The fact that it's starting to shape the way I think is a little scary.
Hello, my darling Plan readers. I feel like I haven't communicated via aside in awhile. I'm at the point where posting daily has become routine, so sometimes it's easy to get caught in the rhythm and not look up. Most of you know that I try to keep personal stuff off the blog, but really, that's what makes them interesting, no?
Life in NY is good. I'm still enjoying my job, working on a couple killer projects right now. I've been going out more, making the effort to see people more often. It's definitely a process - I'm still missing those effortless friends I could just call up and meet immediately, as opposed to planning a get together a week in advance. In time.
Being in NY has made me want to travel more. Not that I want to escape the city, but something about it reminds me of all the places I've never been, and how much of the East Coast hasn't been explored. I think LA lulls you into a sort of complacency, because who would ever want to leave 80 degrees in January? Anyways, plotting my next trip as we speak.
That's pretty much the haps for now. I'm handling the cold much better than I expected (mostly I look like an Eskimo, but at least I'm warm). Hope everything's going well in your lives.
It's been a hibernation weekend for the most part, and I was able to catch up on a lot of bad TV. I was thinking about MTV and how its programming has seen a pretty significant shift.
Back in 2004, MTV hit teen gold with Laguna Beach. The producer-aided "reality" series was a celebration of teen drama amidst a background of gorgeous sea-side mansions, shopping sprees, luxury cars, lavish vacations, and large, expensive rings. It gave us a glimpse of a different world that only a privileged group are able to experience. They rode the wave with spin-offs like Newport Harbor, The Hills, and The City. In each series, despite the drama, it was clear - life was really good.
Then in 2005, MTV premiered My Super Sweet 16, a series that documented the extremely extravagant coming of age parties of teenagers with wealthy parents. We're talking billionaires, moguls, and celebrities' kids, who know that money is no object. It's a kind of complete indulgence reserved for very few. Kanye West performance, helicopter entrance, a menagerie of live animals, gifts of a new Benz, or a trip around the world - nothing is off limits.
But today, we see MTV pushing a very different line-up of shows - Jersey Shore, 16 and Pregnant, and I Used to Be Fat.
Clearly, these shows feature a different demographic than the latter batch. Gone is the air-brushed, aesthetically pleasing lifestyles of the rich. Instead, the shows focus on the rougher, sometimes ugly parts of life. It's a little more real, and a little more everyman. It's less frivolous and more serious (ok, maybe not Jersey Shore).
Just something I noticed today. Needs some more thought as to what caused this shift.
Quick post today. I was watching Family Guy on Hulu earlier, and thought this bit was a nice reflection of modern social media dynamics.
That being said (watched?), I'm a firm believer that not all online relationships are less meaningful or more distant than real life connections. Social media is just another side of the relationship-building coin.
I love that Family Guy picked up on the awkwardness of "Like"ing certain statuses. One (of many) of that show's strengths is incorporating and poking fun at little bits of current culture.
I've been thinking about catcalling lately. For women in New York, it's something that comes with the territory (unfortunately). And yes, not all men do it. I highly doubt that any male who reads The Plan does it.
Let's be straight - it's never the men you'd actually want to get to know/find attractive that are hollering. Quite the opposite, it's usually the gross ones that are the most vocal. The ones you would never in a thousand years actually respond to.
The anthropologist in me looks for an evolutionary explanation. In nature, males employ mating calls to signal to females that they're fit and worthy of being chosen as a mate. It's often a dominance display, and the louder, the better (see above). So it stands to reason that men are just following through with their natural urges. Hypothetically, in the best (ahem, delusional) case scenario, a catcall will lead to sex.
But in modern times, the chances of sex post-catcall are slim to none. So, given that the rate of success is 0.01%, there must be another reason why some men continue the call. I've read forums in which guys insist that catcalls are more about displaying in front of other males, or a bonding ritual. Catcalling in front of other bros reaffirms your manliness (read: heterosexuality), and signals confidence.
Fair enough. And it's not like us ladies are making it any easier. From what I've seen online, women are split in their opinions on the matter. On one end of the spectrum are the women who see it as sexual harassment, and continual objectification of women as sex objects (you'll never hear a man yell, "Woo woo! You look like you're well-read!"). On the opposite end are those who take catcalls as a compliment - one women was in a 2008 CNN study said that when men don't catcall, she feels ugly and dumpy. And the whole range of emotions - annoyance, fright, amusement - in between.
My personal reaction is this. Though I can't quite grasp why some men still do it, I can accept that they do and that for the most part, it's harmless. From what I've read, most men, when confronted, get embarrassed and never believed that a woman would actually respond in the first place. If anything, it's most distressing for me when the catcall is combined with ignorance and mild racism ("Ni hao, baby" or "Konichiwa, hot mama" - I'm neither, thanks).
The game has become nothing short of a cultural phenomenon. The addicting game that has millions of iOS and Android users hooked has invaded our desktops, and will soon make their way onto our game consoles. Mattel is developing an analog experience with an Angry Birds board game (see also, plush toys).
And the ultimate conquest? An animated series, which is currently in development.
Now, I'm not an Angry Birds player, so I might be the wrong person to brainstorm exactly why Angry Birds is so popular (or maybe some objectiveness is good). What is it that makes it so engaging? It's certainly not the first game where you launch something to break something else. I ask not from a challenging standpoint, but in an effort to understand the ingredients of an addicting game.
Here's a partial list of attributes of an addicting game, as observed in both games:
- Intuitive - it's easy to see what the objective of the game is. - Graphically simple. - An "enemy" - the pigs or the ghosts. - A "tactile" reward - the knocking down of houses or the eating of dots.
The always insightful PSFK offered up an article today called, "Making Culture, Provoking Culture," by Grant McCracken. If this sounds dull, keep reading. It involves pie.
McCracken (sweet last name) writes that people settle into a state of statis. We become routine in the way we think (the world operates in this particular way), the actions we go through (ex. - get up, brush teeth, shower, dress, go to work, get lunch, etc.). In a way, we acclimate, and desensitize to our everyday stimuli (much like your eyeball would, if held completely still - the image in front of you will start to disappear).
Therefore, we need to be provided with something new. Something that forces us out of our habitual state of mind. McCracken's simple example is of a group of people who stood on a street corner in Belfast, Maine, and handed hand slices of pie, pecan, pumpkin and apple, to passers-by. For no reason, other to interrupt them out of statis with a little surprise and delight, even for a few minutes.
My favorite line from the article is: "Designers are very good at thinking about provocations. After all, they are in the imagination business. They are trained to look at existing systems, spot where stasis lives, and think of ways to make things new."
I'd like to think good planners are this way too. They look at the way the world is and question it. They ask why we do things that we've always done and have taken for granted. They don't take that's-just-the-way-it-is for an answer. And it's then that culture is provoked (such a great way to phrase it!).
Full article here. Worth a look-see, I barely scratched the surface.
One could say that 2010 was the year of the deal site. Gilt, Blackboard Eats, Living Social, Groupon, along with a slew of smaller, localized pages gained swelling followings. Their approaches varied - some, like Gilt and RueLaLa, curated sales and sold products directly on the site. Others, like Blackboard Eats, offered coupon codes for percentages off selected restaurants. And finally, sites like Living Social and Groupon employed a buy-in-advance for a discounted price - the latter introducing the world to the tipping point/crowdsource/ deal activation model.
It's been interesting to see the landscape of deal sites ebb as the sites evolve to find their niche. Today, I got a distressing email from my favorite of the sites (see above), announcing that previously free discount codes (usually 30% off lunch or dinner), are now $1. The beauty of Blackboard Eats was that it was free money saved that didn't require a commitment, unlike so many of the other sites.
I was watching the Twitter buzz regarding BBE among foodies today. Some were mildly miffed, but most considered the site's careful curated selection of partner restaurants worth an extra buck. And while it seems counter intuitive to pay for a coupon, another way to look at it is just a smaller percentage off - 27.5% off versus 30% off, for example.
I wonder which way people will see it. And whether that $1 charge, while small, will be the hump that drives people to seek other deal sites.
Last night, Ricky Gervais hosted the 2011 Golden Globes. As an always-blunt British transplant who generally dissociates himself from the Hollywood crowd, Gervais was in a position to really let the A-listers have it. Luckily for all of us at home, he didn't hold back. He created uncomfortable moment after uncomfortable moment as he roasted stars right before they came out to present.
But while I was giggling on my friend's couch, some of the Hollywood elite was not having it. Robert Downey Jr said on stage, "Aside from the fact that it's been hugely mean-spirited with mildly sinister undertones, I'd say the vibe of the show has been pretty good so far, wouldn't you?"
And who could forget Steve Carell's stiff-arming after Gervais introduced him as the "ungrateful Steven Carell" for leaving his role on The Office?
Even the Los Angeles Times noted that "a visible contingent in the glitzy crowd was palpably discomfited by the British comic's full-frontal joke assault, which set a corrosive tone for this year's ceremony".
There's something to be said about Hollywood being a community of insecure narcissists who can't take a joke (and yes, there are some that can). But something about Downey Jr's line about mean-spiritedness and sinister or corrosive undertones keeps coming back to me. It makes me think of the general wave of optimism that we've been riding (Obama campaign, Pepsi Refresh, Coke's Open Happiness, for example) since the recession. Perhaps given that mindset, people will react more strongly to anything contrary or "mean-spirited." Maybe Hollywood was expecting a positive, feel-good show and were "palpably discomfited" when they got something else.
Cell phone post tonight. I'm out to late dinner with two friends from college and we're waiting for our food.
Have you ever confessed a past crush to said crush years later? You're both in such a different places now that past feelings are almost inconsequential. If you haven't tried it, it's actually quite liberating.
Do you remember when banner ads were first introduced? Those super intrusive, seizure-inducing, LOOK AT THIS NOW atrocities that started to share space with online content. Then, as we started to understand them better and the way that people (don't) interact with them, they became more sophisticated. And as the technology continues to improve (hello, HTML 5 - not an ad, but you get the idea. Highly recommend downloading Chrome just to watch - screen grab above), we'll see even more clever executions.
I can't wait to see geo-targeted ads go through the same evolution. The obnoxious first attempts from those who are just happy to be here (or wherever you are) to the elegantly executed and ingenious campaigns of the future. The optimist in me might wonder whether we know enough now that we can skip the awkward initial stage. But the realist in me thinks that the growing pains are a natural and maybe necessary part of the process.
I've been battling some pretty bad insomnia this past week. For some reason I consistently can't fall asleep until 3AM. For someone who adores sleep and has never had a problem with it, it's the most frustrating thing. It's like my brain doesn't know when to shut down anymore.
When I can't sleep, I usually read, or watch a movie on Netflix. Sometimes I'll call a friend who is conveniently three hours behind. Last night's entertainment between the hours of 1AM-3AM was retro toy commercials from my childhood on YouTube.
I started with Easy Bake, which led me to various Play-Doh products (ice cream, then spaghetti), and then to Fantastic Flowers. Queasy Bake led me to Baby Alive, which opened up a whole world of life-like baby doll commercials (frightening things that eat, pee and poop. I know there's a biological reason, but the natural urge for little girls to pretend they're mommies astounds and scares me). I transitioned into Barbie (one of many, many iterations), then various hair manipulation dolls (streak it, tattoo it, cut it!), to PJ Sparkles (which I actually had at one point). PJ Sparkles segued into all the Little Miss dolls - Magic Hair, Magic Jewels, Magic Makeup. And on and on into the early morning.
As an informed adult working in advertising, I can be analytical of these ads. I can acknowledge their now retroness (check out the hairstyle examples of Totally Hair Barbie, the exaggerated way that the little girls in the spots exclaim about the products (did you and your friends ever squeal things in unison?), and the inane jingles. How all these elements worked towards getting kids hyper-excited about the latest and greatest.
But I swear, something deep inside me still gets pulled a little. Maybe it's just the long-forgotten shadow of a past want. Obviously, these are not things I want right now as a 25 year old, but I find myself strangely fascinated by these old ads. Is it just the nostalgia of a simpler time when I had enough imagination that I could accept the gimmicks that made Baby All Gone "eat" her food?
Try it for yourself. Get on YouTube and search for any old toy commercial or infomercial you can remember. Chances are, it's archived and up there. Then, use the related videos on the right to take a stroll down memory lane. Viewer beware: it's easy to get sucked into a long chain of childhood I-want-that's.
Last weekend I stopped by a great example of the creative urban renewal trend predicted in 2011 by JWT Intelligence. Park Here is an indoor pop-up park at Openhouse Gallery in Nolita. The park, while completely synthetic (except for some tanbark at the entrance), mimics the pleasant openness of a park on a warm day.
For those who live in areas blessed with plenty of green and year-round warm weather, this probably sounds really corny. A bunch of people sitting around inside on Astro turf, surrounded by fake trees and a recording of birds chirping? That was my initial thought too.
But as soon as I stepped through the doors, I and everyone around me bought into it. For whatever reason, we believed enough in this "park" experience to grab a coffee and settle down with a newspaper on one of the benches or on the "grass" up against a wall. People were lying down, listening to music, or catching up on the latest just-between-friends chatter under the trees. There was even a whole group of people playing a board game in the middle of one of the rooms, er, grassy areas. Add heating (it felt like spring), food vendors and free wi-fi, and you have the best park ever.
Our desire to have access to green spaces is great enough that even a simulation will do.
PS - New Yorkers - head over to 201 Mulberry St. to check it out. Open daily 11AM-6PM, free.
This modest Tumblr has been making the rounds in the ad community today. It's an inward-looking, humorous reminder that in the end, it's just advertising. The call to action one kills me.
Another meta-analytical piece that's been circulating recently. It's one of those so-funny-because-it's-so-true videos for those of us in the industry. It has all the ingredients of a slam dunk case study - the voiceover, the copy, and of course, the use of Arcade Fire - yet the actual marketing problem makes it feel somewhat silly.
So how does one justify a career in something that is "just" advertising? It's not like doctors can go around saying that it's "just" saving people's lives.
Ads occupy this oft-flippant space in our minds, yet they drive so much of our world. At worst, they're annoying clutter. But at best, advertising is culture creation that shakes us. And the latter is worth getting into.
We are empowered as consumers by plentiful choice. Competition within industries yields a variety of brands just waiting to be chosen by us.
But imagine you had no choice in something essential on which you relied. You'd be in a dreaded "forced relationship." Personify for a moment, and imagine a forced relationship with someone. For whatever reason, you have to be with this one person. Knowing you can't leave, they'd no doubt take liberties, maybe be abusive in some way, shape or form. And even in the best case scenario where there is no abuse, you would inevitably begin to resent your forced partner, simply for the fact that you have no choice in the matter.
An unlikely scenario between humans, but between consumers and brands? Take, for example, the Verizon iPhone announcement made today. Part of the reason for the hooplah surrounding this highly anticipated reveal is that it effectively releases iPhone users from a forced relationship with AT&T. As the former exclusive carrier of the iPhone, anyone who wanted to be part of the Apple smartphone phenomenon had no choice but to use AT&T. And you have not heard ire and resentment until you've talked to AT&T iPhone users.
Another example: Internet service providers exclusive to your neighborhood. While some of you are lucky enough to reside in shared zoning, others are covered by only one company. Whether it's Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Road Runner, etc., we curse their name over spotty connection, shitty customer service, and most of all that despite all this, we are still stuck with them.
So while it might seem awesome for a brand to be the one and only choice, the position comes with the great risk of a forced relationship, and all the baggage that entails.
One of my bosses said I looked peaked today. That's "pee-kid," as in pale and drawn in appearance so as to suggest illness or stress; wan and sickly (Dictionary.com). I have that nagging feeling that I'll be sick in a couple of days if I don't drown myself in OJ and sleep for 10 hours straight, so I'll make this one quick.
A friend of mine posed an interesting online social question the other day. If you give a guy your number and he says he'll call, do you friend him on Facebook prior to his call? On the one hand, it's a nice little reminder - hey, hi, this is me, we met the other night. But if he doesn't call, not only does your outreach go unanswered, but there's also the potential that you'll be left with an awkward new friendship.
Or how about the other way around? If he friends you, there's a good chance you'll receive that call. But does it mean anything if he doesn't? When is the right time to take the leap from practical stranger to weak-tie Facebook friend?
Social media adds a new layer of social mores onto an already complicated dating scene.
I walk around NYC with music in my ears. Music that flows through my earbuds provides several things. It shields me from hearing unwanted cat calls (if I didn't hear it, it's like it didn't happen). Once in awhile, the right mood-appropriate song will come on, and it feels like I'm in a movie (my favorite walking soundtrack - Bittersweet Symphony by the Verve and Sweet Disposition by Temper Trap). And finally, it allows me to zone out, often making long distances pass more quickly (handy in chilly weather).
While I'm getting ready in the morning, I turn on Pandora. The music fills the silence, provides a sense of company. It wakes me up and makes me feel productive. When I'm at the gym, music gives me a rhythm to match, and again makes the time pass faster.
Here's where I can't do music. One - when I'm working or writing this blog. I can't think when someone else's words are present. Two - while I'm falling asleep. I have a friend who's the opposite, and has a pre-selected sleepy time playlist.
In 2009, Marc Prensky declared that music is the new silence for those under 30. You can watch the clip here (PBS, while often wonderful, is unable to get their embed code to work). The idea that the "resting" state of our brains now includes music is so fascinating. It's almost as if technology is causing this uber-fast evolutionary shift.
Whenever I open the browser on my Android phone, a small window pops up. It says, "Google would like to access your location. Allow?" The options I'm presented with are, "Yes," "No, thanks," and "Cancel."
It's worth noting that I'm still asked in the first place. As far as mobile browsing is concerned, we are still in the opt-in phase. No doubt there will be a day where geolocation will be opt-out, the default, just as so many other things are (browser history and other privacy settings).
My choice is always "Cancel." Call me a late adopter (shudder), but I'm still of the mindset that geolocation is creepy. I realize all the benefits that it could potentially bring, but the idea of anyone - even a company I love (no sarcasm) - knowing where I am feels, well, weird for lack of a better term.
But I hit "Cancel," not "No." Somewhere in the not so distant future, I think the benefits of geolocation will become more concrete, and our mindset will shift. Little by little, it won't be strange to allow my location to be known. And when that time comes, I want the option to be tracked to still be available to me. Thus, "Cancel."
What's funny is thinking about who, exactly, would know where I am. I can understand politicians, celebrities, criminals on the run and other public figures being worried about geolocation. And while the layperson has every right to his own privacy, who, really, cares where we are? It's not as if there's one guy pinging my mobile who will use the knowledge that I'm heading NW from Bleecker and Bowery to his twisted advantage. It's easy to flatter ourselves in imagining such a scenario. In reality, a series of remote computers will know our locations. Something out there in the ethos, 10,000 feet up will know where we are.
The answer to who cares where we are is, of course, brands. Advertisers. Researchers like me who want to know where people are hanging out, spending their time and money. Yes, there's a creepy factor. But in theory, is it that different from using a rewards card at a grocery store that tracks your purchases and then sends you relevant coupons based on what you buy? Or a credit card company knowing your purchasing habits month to month?
It's amazing what we can get used to, as long as it's gradual. Soon I won't think twice about hitting, "Yes."
I had a crazy case of insomnia last night. I was flitting around on YouTube when I saw this ad pop up over the video. Most in-video ads on YouTube are designed to be unobtrusive, scrolling up from the bottom and covering very little of the actual content.
But the headline, YOU CAN DISORIENT SPERM, RIGHT? right under this girl's face definitely caught my attention.
I'm not an avid YouTuber, so I'm unfamiliar with the ad/channel content regulation. In print, an advertiser can pull their ad dollars from a magazine if the ad is placed unfavorably - a Mexican tourism ad next to an article about a young blond being abducted in Mexico, for example. Likewise, an editor can pull an ad (though usually a costly decision) if she disapproves of the content.
But how much control does a YouTube content provider have on the type of ads that get overlaid on their videos? It's sort of a roundabout relationship, where it's unclear who owns the space, if you think about it. YouTube provides the platform for us to upload our content for free, or for a fee (for channel creation). We "allow" YouTube to run ads over our content. At the same time, the advertisers who are paying to run on the space want to match their ad with the right video content. In this case, the sperm ad is a Teva Woman's Health ad, which is very appropriately placed on a YouTube channel that talks about make up tutorials and relationship advice.
But something tells me that this girl doesn't want screen shots like the one above being seen. In the digital world where space ownership is blurred, where does the control lie?
Before I get started - big day in Natalie world! Today is my 265th post, which means I am a mere 100 days away from finishing The Plan. I remember when I hit my 100th post, and I commented on how pleasant 100 looks as a number. Now it serves as a counting down point, which is crazy to me. Ok, now onto the post.
I consider myself fairly technologically savvy, well-versed in matters of the Internet and digital media. Of course I am - I'm a card carrying member of the infamous demographic known as the Millennials. But before we get too excited about those under 30 and what we're doing with social media and the like, stop and consider the yet to be named group of tweens that are poised to take over the digital world.
Think about it. There is a group of kids out there who have known the Internet their whole lives. They are what clever media analysts like to call digital natives (the rest of us being digital immigrants). Because their whole existence has involved the web, social media, digital media and smartphones, they are fundamentally wired differently. It's like a whole other social being we're dealing with here.
Granted, the underlying human truths that I love are still there - they just manifest themselves in new ways. Our need to belong, our search for validation of ourselves and our choices, etc. are simply executed differently.
The challenge then, is to study this younger subset without us digital immigrants (I'd like to think that I'm somewhere in between...digital ex-pat?) letting our view of the world influence it. It's one of those tricky things that immediately gets awkward as soon as you start to analyze it. Example - the cringe-worthiness of adults talking about the newest fad or lingo amongst the young 'uns. See also - trying to force something to be viral. Shudder.
This has been the week of bizarre coincidences. My run-in with someone I met at the NYE event I went to, and now this.
I flew back from SFO to JFK early on Tuesday. While waiting for my flight, I noticed a guy sitting a couple seats away from me. He looked young-ish (early twenties?), and was otherwise nondescript. He was just...noticeable. You know?
Anyways, he ended up sitting a handful of rows in front of me on the plane. We never spoke, but we kept playing the look-up-and-see-them-look-away game as we were boarding, and at baggage claim. Following the typical rom-com script, he pulled away in a taxi right as I reached the front of the taxi queue. Goodbye forever, right?
Any fleeting thoughts of, wouldn't it be funny if we ran into each other in NY came to fruition this afternoon. I was walking back from the post office in Chinatown, and I almost ran into him on the street. He looked like he was waiting for one of the Chinatown buses. We passed each other, both did a double take, and then kept walking. (I'm a huge wimp. Huge.)
Like I've said before - I believe in coincidences, not fate. But these two-time chance meetings got me thinking about missed connections.
My friend Jaemin was telling me about the TIME Magazine Person of the Year article celebrating Mark Zuckerberg (great read). In it, he touches on the idea of coincidence and missed connections:
"We have this concept of serendipity — humans do," Zuckerberg says. (The clarification is vintage Zuckerberg.) "A lucky coincidence. It's like you go to a restaurant and you bump into a friend that you haven't seen for a while. That's awesome. That's serendipitous. And a lot of the reason why that seems so magical is because it doesn't happen often. But I think the reality is that those circumstances aren't actually rare. It's just that we probably miss like 99% of it. How much of the time do you think you're actually at the same restaurant as that person but you're at opposite sides so you don't see them, or you missed each other by 10 minutes, or they're in the next restaurant over? When you have this kind of context of what's going on, it's just going to make people's lives richer, because instead of missing 99% of them, maybe now you'll start seeing a lot more of them."
Facebook wants to populate the wilderness, tame the howling mob and turn the lonely, antisocial world of random chance into a friendly world, a serendipitous world.
I'm trying to imagine my chance meet up with airline guy the way Zuckerberg imagines it. A world where we allow our phones to be open and pingable, so when cute guy gets within x yards away from me in the airport, I can scroll through his profile, maybe poke him to get his attention, friend him if I'm bold enough. Then the next day, he'd appear on my Maps program as I'm walking down the street. I imagine I'd still be wowed by the coincidence, but some nuanced element of surprise would be lacking as I watched his little dot get closer and closer to me. Would I be more likely to say something? This is assuming that we'd have gotten to the point where it's not creepy to approach someone you've never met and say you saw them on your cell.
Today we have Craigslist Missed Connections, those desperate, shot-in-hell attempts to undo a missed meeting (full disclosure - I posted my first missed connection ever for airline dude. It's not even that I want to meet him. Consider it a social experiment, because what are the chances that he'd actually respond? Stay tuned). There's something so innocent about Missed Connections (minus the NSFW ones). The chance that the other person involved in the missed connection would think to check Craigslist, see your ad and actually respond to it is mind boggling. Yet, people still post in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, it will work.
Celebrity memes have become such delicious little nuggets of Internet culture. While the origin is often hard to pin down (4chan, anyone?), and there is no exact formula for viralness, the creativity of the Internet community proliferates a single image or animated gif into infamy with no purpose other than entertainment.
James Van Der Beek runs with his own meme. I cannot tell you how much I love meta-analytical/tongue in cheek videos like this. The 10 year anniversary one kills me.
(One of my favorite sculptures/post allusion - Psyche Revived by Cupid's Kiss. From Wikimedia Commons.)
We spent most of today on the road again, but finally made it back! The road trip took us on a tour de California, through snow, orange groves and vineyards, and the turquoise coast.
During our hours of conversation, the topic of significant other privacy invasion came up. My friend commented that it seemed like every relationship went through an episode (or multiple episodes) in which the female poked around her boyfriend's text messages, emails or Facebook account.
But very rarely do you hear about males committing such breaches, and when you do, our first thought is usually, total psycho slash borderline abusive. In comparison, girlfriend breaches, while unacceptable invasions of privacy and lack of trust, seem to be accepted as commonplace, a given.
Our analysis attributed these girlfriend breaches to good old evolution. If men are evolutionarily driven to spread their seed, then privacy breaches are a modern woman's way to verify that she's found a mate that will stick with her après offspring. Thus, it makes biological sense that women would be more prone to snooping, as they are driven to find a faithful significant other.
This is not to excuse any invasions of privacy on the part of either gender. But it does provide some context, and explanation that runs deeper than, she was a crazy bitch.
(Earlier today, when the snow was pretty, and not a complete nightmare.)
I've been battling the elements for the past five hours trying to get back to Palo Alto (well, Jaemin has. I'm navigating). The 5 is closed due to wind and snow, so we've had to take a couple alternate routes. We are still closer to LA, so it's going to have to be a cell phone post today.
[3 hours later]
[9:31PM] Coming to you from the Days Inn in Palmdale. The snow is coming down like crazy and traffic was crawling, so we decided to stay put for the night.
I had a strange chance encounter on the road today. We had taken an alternate, local route that took us right next to the 5. The small road wasn't even paved in sections, and was covered with snow. We were the only one on the road for awhile, until we caught up with a white Subaru. We rolled down the window to compare notes.
The driver looked strangely familiar, and as soon as he opened his mouth, I recognized him. We had met him at the massive New Year's event we went to on Friday night. Out of everyone on the roads, we ran into one of the 50,000 people we encountered at the party. I'm a strong believer in coincidence, but this was one of the craziest ones I've experienced yet.
Here's hoping that I can get back to Norcal tomorrow.
In an ideal world, we would self-assess and make resolutions all year long. But in reality, we can only handle the commitment once a year. It's a symbolic fresh start, a chance to work on various aspects of our lives. Whether they last for a couple months, or sustain throughout the year, resolutions give us something to focus on.
Resolution is a pretty strong word, if you stop and think about it. It implies success - if you have resolve to do something, you'll do it. See Dictionary.com definition: Firm or determined; unwavering.
It would be so interesting to have people submit their resolutions year to year to see if any trends make themselves known. Example - in a recession year, a spike in the number of resolutions to save money or spend less. Even better would be to split the resolutions up by demographic to see what millennials are resolving to do versus the baby boomers.
Here's my list for 2011: - Be more social in NY. My natural hermitness is at odds with my need to build a social base in NY.
- Be more social with The Plan. A huge aspect of blogging is the community built around various topics. I want to connect with other planners in the blogosphere, and get to know the people who stop and read The Plan. Thus far, you've been the strong/silent type, but I'd love to come up with ways to hear more from you/about you.
- See one Broadway show or art exhibit every month. If I can spend $50/month on a gym that I may or may not go to, I can afford to shell out the money to experience a little culture.
I'll try to post updates on how the resolutions are coming along. Maybe it'll help me hold myself to them.
An exercise in strategic thinking and prolific writing. One post per day for a year. Commentary, observations, and interpretations of current culture by an aspiring planner.
