As soon as I heard the word "blog" as opposed to "formal paper" mentioned on the first day of this course, my heart was filled with joy. After taking an extremely arduous physiology course crammed into 6 weeks, I was in dire need of a break. I naively welcomed this "easy class" and imagined all of the things I would be free to do during what I expected to be a very relaxing second summer session.
I could not have been more wrong in my expectations.
As mentioned in my first post, I used to be very fond of writing. But, after nearly a decade of rules, techniques, rules, research reports, and more rules, I found myself "over-taught". My ability to write slipped away. Somewhere along the path of my academic career, I had lost my identity as I writer. In the last three years, I have written countless essays and research papers for various courses. With each and every one, I would struggle to write the first sentence. All of the sentences that followed were equally difficult to force out. After several hours, I'd find myself with two paragraphs written. I'd read them, become highly dissatisfied with the writing, and delete the whole thing only to start the entire process over again. Every paper I turned in was a disappointment. I got the grades I needed, but my writing was embarrassing.
Excited about the prospect of an "easy" course, I went into the first few classes bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. I was very pleased with the long discussions that were almost always about things that truly mattered to me. And, it was exactly this that made the course difficult. Prompts were fairly open-ended and I had to write about things that I genuinely cared about. Even worse, there was no right answer. I was free to opine that which I truly believed without fear of the dreaded letter 'F' from a disagreeable TA. Passion about the class topics as well as freedom (note how I am extensively using the word "I") forced me to find the identity I had lost.
In writing about that which I was passionate about, I felt a deep obligation to write well – or at least, better than how I had written in the past. But, decent writing takes serious time and care; soon, this "easy" class and the required blog posts were completely consuming my afternoons, evenings, and energy. I began having trouble getting up in the morning and found myself struggling to stay awake during the day. Despite these negative consequences, this class was worth it; I could write again. Not once did I find myself staring hopelessly at a cold white rectangle with a tiny blinking line that seemed to command the word "write!" with each blink. For the first time in years, the white rectangle was warm, welcoming, and quickly filled with words. The endless revisions no longer seemed so endless (although there were plenty of them). And, the end result was no longer something that caused me shame and embarrassment. Instead, each blog post brought me satisfaction and sometimes a bit of pride.
This difficult course helped me re-gain my ability to write. Although I am pleased with this newly found ability, I do not expect it to completely alter my life. However, there is something truly magical about the phrase "strong writing skills" no longer being a complete lie on my resumé.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Green
The word green has long been associated with living plants and nature. It is a relative of the Old English word growan, which means "to grow". Centuries ago, green (often spelled as "grene" or "greene" back then) was the word that described the color of living plants. In the year 1390, John Gower poetically described "the tree with leves grene, Upon the which no fruit is sene" in Confessio amantis. And 200 years later, Edmund Spenser wrote of a "dainty place..Planted with mirtle trees and laurells greene".
Astoundingly, the word green is mainly used in the the exact same way it was used roughly 600 years ago. The OED defines green as "the adjective denoting the color which in the spectrum is intermediate between blue and yellow; in nature chiefly conspicuous as the color of growing herbage and leaves". However, green does not only connote some form of nature; throughout the centuries, the word green has gained a great variety of other meanings.
The wearing of a green gown was used to signify the dress of a promiscuous woman. This is due to the fact that sexual activities held outdoors may result in grass stains on the clothing. In that time, a man may have boasted to his friends about giving a lady a green gown. While this use is now defunct, it still survives in the famous (and very old) English folk song entitled "Greensleeves" where a man bemoans rejection from the "lover" that has so "enraptured" him and has long been his "joy" and "delight"; the fact that the subject is called "Greensleeves" reveals that the song is about a sexual (as opposed platonic) relationship with what was likely considered to be a woman with questionable morals.
Green was also used to describe fleeting, intangible things like memories or age; this is seen in the term green old age. The use of green in this manner reached its peak in the 19th century and is no longer used such a way today. The same goes for the term green hand which was used to describe inexperienced people or untrained animals. However, while the term itself is no longer used, highly similar uses of the word green still survive today.
Since the origin of the word, green has been used to describe fruits and nuts that are young, tender, and unripe. Similarly, green has been used to describe people exhibiting qualities associated with youth. In 1818, Edward Scott captured this alternate meaning when he wrote "your greener age and robust constitution promise longer life". In 1585, Thomas Washington wrote of people that were "young of yeeres and age, they should also bee greene of sense and judgment" and thus captured a more negative and potentially insulting meaning of the word green.
Green is also used to describe the complexion of those who are sick. This is likely due to the fact that certain illnesses will cause people to exhibit green (or yellow) jaundice where the skin actually does appear somewhat greenish. In 1525, John Berners described a sick duke as being "waxed pale and grene as a lefe". Because the word sick is not solely used to describe those afflicted with actual illness, but also negative emotions, the word green is applied to those "sick" with jealousy, fear, ill-humor, or other negative emotions. With this in mind, it is not surprising that the cliché "green with envy" has existed since, at the very least, the 1500s.
To this very day, green is gaining new meanings. In the early 20th century, people who were unusually good at gardening where said to have a "green thumb". This usage is based around the word's association with nature and plants and is still used today. Another recent usage is the word green as a synonym for money (specifically the United States dollar). Seen when some individuals proclaim that "it's all about the green", such a usage is likely due to the fact that paper money in the United States is often green. Green's association with money has also linked it to capitalism, globalization, and greed. On a much different note, the green is used to describe the grass on a golf course. But, perhaps this usage of the word green is not that far from the usage of green as a synonym for money; golf is often associated with capitalism due to the fact that many business deals are said to take place on a golf course.
One of the newest terms associated with the word green is the green movement which began in the 1970s. The term green movement describes the increasing support of so-called “environmentalism”. Members of the green movement claim to lead “environment-friendly” or “green” lives by attempting to live in what they perceive as a way to inflict minimal harm on the environment. In this context, the word green is used to describe anything (often products or services) that is labeled as “earth/eco/environment-friendly”. Members of the green movement would consider the crux of this movement to be Mother Nature; therefore, green, a word that has been closely tied with nature for the last 600 years, makes an apt title for such a movement.
However, it is this incredibly popular movement itself that is causing the word green to loose its original identity. Instead of being associated with the true, wild, untamed-by-human-hands nature that our ancestors lived and coped with every single day, the green movement is causing the word green to be more associated with virtual nature. What is virtual nature? Virtual nature is an intangible, man-made tool. It is used in order to appeal to consumers in capitalist countries. These consumers tend to have lives that are very disconnected from nature. They tend to live in cities, suburbs, and even small towns. In fact, anyone who is reading this at the moment (me included) probably falls into this category. We do not rely on the earth the same way our ancestors did; because of globalization, we do not have to worry about starvation or drought due to bad weather or an unsuccessful harvest in our area. If something goes wrong with our local crops, we can get the food we need from somewhere else. If it doesn't rain, we can divert water from somewhere else. There is always a distant "somewhere else" that gives us what we need. And there is always a "they" that gets what we need to us.
The consumer's connection to nature is best described as extremely indirect. And, whatever nature we do connect with (not by necessity but often for recreation) is connected with via some form of travel. Because of massive habitat (habitat as a synonym for the flora of the earth in its untamed form [e.g. nature]) destruction, we do not live within nature. When we want to see it, we must physically go to it. For us, nature isn't here – it's somewhere else.
Perhaps it is the distance and disconnect, both physically and mentally, that give nature and the word green its allure. Or maybe it is some kind of basal desire to return to our wilder, more animalistic roots. Either way, many of us are truly enthralled by nature. At the very least, it gets our attention because it is something different, something outside of this "civilization" bubble that we live in. And many of us know, whether we are willing to admit it or not, that nature is in peril due to human activities.
Somehow, whilst living in and expanding our civilization bubble by reproducing (euphemistically known as "starting a family") and doing our best to give our children their own piece of the human civilization bubble (also known as "living the American dream"), we seek to save nature. But, conservation and urban sprawl are mutually exclusive phenomena. It is our activities, our creations, our expansion that is behind the number one threat to the flora and fauna that compose nature: habitat destruction.
Our desires are ironic, but strong, and companies seek to capitalize on them. They inundate us with images and sounds of nature through our TVs, computers, radios, books, magazines, and all other forms of media; this is virtual nature. Over and over they call their products "green" implying that they are "eco-friendly" while exposing us to virtual nature. Companies hope that we will forget the "virtual" part and believe their false claims. The fact of the matter is that no car, no cleaning product, no appliance, no shirt, no canvas bag, no anything made by human hands is "green". Anything we make requires two things: resources and space. To gain these two essential ingredients, we must take the resources and make the space via some degree of not-so-eco-friendly destruction of nature.
Studies have shown that if someone is exposed to a claim repeatedly, over time, they will tend to believe that claim. Because companies heighten the effectiveness of their advertisements through the use of virtual nature; it is likely that the average person is exposed to virtual nature in conjunction with the word green several times per day. This, as well as our disconnected, "civilized" lifestyles are spurring the loss of that which green originally connoted.
The human population of the earth is about 6.7 billion. At the current rate of growth, the population will be nearly 9 billion in 2050. That's a 34% jump in population size in less than 50 years; human population growth is truly exponential. Considering the fact that enormous advances in medicine are being made practically by the day, this figure is likely an underestimate. With so many people on this planet trying to live what we perceive as normal, happy lives, it is likely that we will push nature to the brink. Perhaps the shift in the meaning and connotation of the word green is suitable for the modern world. By 2050, with 9 billion people on this planet, it is likely that virtual nature will be the only form of nature that we have. It seems as if it would make the most sense for green to be associated with that which actually still exists, even if it is merely virtual.
Astoundingly, the word green is mainly used in the the exact same way it was used roughly 600 years ago. The OED defines green as "the adjective denoting the color which in the spectrum is intermediate between blue and yellow; in nature chiefly conspicuous as the color of growing herbage and leaves". However, green does not only connote some form of nature; throughout the centuries, the word green has gained a great variety of other meanings.
The wearing of a green gown was used to signify the dress of a promiscuous woman. This is due to the fact that sexual activities held outdoors may result in grass stains on the clothing. In that time, a man may have boasted to his friends about giving a lady a green gown. While this use is now defunct, it still survives in the famous (and very old) English folk song entitled "Greensleeves" where a man bemoans rejection from the "lover" that has so "enraptured" him and has long been his "joy" and "delight"; the fact that the subject is called "Greensleeves" reveals that the song is about a sexual (as opposed platonic) relationship with what was likely considered to be a woman with questionable morals.
Green was also used to describe fleeting, intangible things like memories or age; this is seen in the term green old age. The use of green in this manner reached its peak in the 19th century and is no longer used such a way today. The same goes for the term green hand which was used to describe inexperienced people or untrained animals. However, while the term itself is no longer used, highly similar uses of the word green still survive today.
Since the origin of the word, green has been used to describe fruits and nuts that are young, tender, and unripe. Similarly, green has been used to describe people exhibiting qualities associated with youth. In 1818, Edward Scott captured this alternate meaning when he wrote "your greener age and robust constitution promise longer life". In 1585, Thomas Washington wrote of people that were "young of yeeres and age, they should also bee greene of sense and judgment" and thus captured a more negative and potentially insulting meaning of the word green.
Green is also used to describe the complexion of those who are sick. This is likely due to the fact that certain illnesses will cause people to exhibit green (or yellow) jaundice where the skin actually does appear somewhat greenish. In 1525, John Berners described a sick duke as being "waxed pale and grene as a lefe". Because the word sick is not solely used to describe those afflicted with actual illness, but also negative emotions, the word green is applied to those "sick" with jealousy, fear, ill-humor, or other negative emotions. With this in mind, it is not surprising that the cliché "green with envy" has existed since, at the very least, the 1500s.
To this very day, green is gaining new meanings. In the early 20th century, people who were unusually good at gardening where said to have a "green thumb". This usage is based around the word's association with nature and plants and is still used today. Another recent usage is the word green as a synonym for money (specifically the United States dollar). Seen when some individuals proclaim that "it's all about the green", such a usage is likely due to the fact that paper money in the United States is often green. Green's association with money has also linked it to capitalism, globalization, and greed. On a much different note, the green is used to describe the grass on a golf course. But, perhaps this usage of the word green is not that far from the usage of green as a synonym for money; golf is often associated with capitalism due to the fact that many business deals are said to take place on a golf course.
One of the newest terms associated with the word green is the green movement which began in the 1970s. The term green movement describes the increasing support of so-called “environmentalism”. Members of the green movement claim to lead “environment-friendly” or “green” lives by attempting to live in what they perceive as a way to inflict minimal harm on the environment. In this context, the word green is used to describe anything (often products or services) that is labeled as “earth/eco/environment-friendly”. Members of the green movement would consider the crux of this movement to be Mother Nature; therefore, green, a word that has been closely tied with nature for the last 600 years, makes an apt title for such a movement.
However, it is this incredibly popular movement itself that is causing the word green to loose its original identity. Instead of being associated with the true, wild, untamed-by-human-hands nature that our ancestors lived and coped with every single day, the green movement is causing the word green to be more associated with virtual nature. What is virtual nature? Virtual nature is an intangible, man-made tool. It is used in order to appeal to consumers in capitalist countries. These consumers tend to have lives that are very disconnected from nature. They tend to live in cities, suburbs, and even small towns. In fact, anyone who is reading this at the moment (me included) probably falls into this category. We do not rely on the earth the same way our ancestors did; because of globalization, we do not have to worry about starvation or drought due to bad weather or an unsuccessful harvest in our area. If something goes wrong with our local crops, we can get the food we need from somewhere else. If it doesn't rain, we can divert water from somewhere else. There is always a distant "somewhere else" that gives us what we need. And there is always a "they" that gets what we need to us.
The consumer's connection to nature is best described as extremely indirect. And, whatever nature we do connect with (not by necessity but often for recreation) is connected with via some form of travel. Because of massive habitat (habitat as a synonym for the flora of the earth in its untamed form [e.g. nature]) destruction, we do not live within nature. When we want to see it, we must physically go to it. For us, nature isn't here – it's somewhere else.
Perhaps it is the distance and disconnect, both physically and mentally, that give nature and the word green its allure. Or maybe it is some kind of basal desire to return to our wilder, more animalistic roots. Either way, many of us are truly enthralled by nature. At the very least, it gets our attention because it is something different, something outside of this "civilization" bubble that we live in. And many of us know, whether we are willing to admit it or not, that nature is in peril due to human activities.
Somehow, whilst living in and expanding our civilization bubble by reproducing (euphemistically known as "starting a family") and doing our best to give our children their own piece of the human civilization bubble (also known as "living the American dream"), we seek to save nature. But, conservation and urban sprawl are mutually exclusive phenomena. It is our activities, our creations, our expansion that is behind the number one threat to the flora and fauna that compose nature: habitat destruction.
Our desires are ironic, but strong, and companies seek to capitalize on them. They inundate us with images and sounds of nature through our TVs, computers, radios, books, magazines, and all other forms of media; this is virtual nature. Over and over they call their products "green" implying that they are "eco-friendly" while exposing us to virtual nature. Companies hope that we will forget the "virtual" part and believe their false claims. The fact of the matter is that no car, no cleaning product, no appliance, no shirt, no canvas bag, no anything made by human hands is "green". Anything we make requires two things: resources and space. To gain these two essential ingredients, we must take the resources and make the space via some degree of not-so-eco-friendly destruction of nature.
Studies have shown that if someone is exposed to a claim repeatedly, over time, they will tend to believe that claim. Because companies heighten the effectiveness of their advertisements through the use of virtual nature; it is likely that the average person is exposed to virtual nature in conjunction with the word green several times per day. This, as well as our disconnected, "civilized" lifestyles are spurring the loss of that which green originally connoted.
The human population of the earth is about 6.7 billion. At the current rate of growth, the population will be nearly 9 billion in 2050. That's a 34% jump in population size in less than 50 years; human population growth is truly exponential. Considering the fact that enormous advances in medicine are being made practically by the day, this figure is likely an underestimate. With so many people on this planet trying to live what we perceive as normal, happy lives, it is likely that we will push nature to the brink. Perhaps the shift in the meaning and connotation of the word green is suitable for the modern world. By 2050, with 9 billion people on this planet, it is likely that virtual nature will be the only form of nature that we have. It seems as if it would make the most sense for green to be associated with that which actually still exists, even if it is merely virtual.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
LightFull the Satiety Smoothie
In 1987, a 16-year-old girl in Fountain Valley, California found out she was pregnant. Despite her young age, irresponsible boyfriend, and highly disapproving father, the girl decided that she was going to have the baby and keep it. Several months later, in what my mom describes the most painful event of her entire life, I was born.
Everyone who saw my pregnant mother thought that I'd be a boy; my mom had planned on naming me "Ryan". Friends and family gave my mom blue and red onesies, baby t-shirts, and shorts at the baby shower held prior to my birth. In fact, many early photos of me show me wearing the aforementioned "boy clothes" despite my female gender. The incorrect assumption about my gender was spurred by one simple fact: my mom was enormous during the pregnancy. She ended up gaining 75 pounds – a very large amount of weight for a petite 16-year-old. Friends and family interpreted the huge weight gain as a sign of a male child.
After I was born, what I call the "perpetual diet" began as my mom struggled to loose the weight she gained. Since then and throughout my entire life outside of the womb, my mom has been on a diet. Despite having long lost all of the weight she gained during pregnancy, my mom continues to diet. And the diet never ever ends.
Ergo, I have become far too familiar with practically any diet food or product that you can conceive of. While I was growing up, my mom was particularly partial to diet yogurts and smoothies. I have a surprisingly large amount of childhood memories of my mom organizing all her diet smoothies in the fridge after a trip to the grocery store. Thus, when I see these, I become quite nostalgic:
The product in the picture is a "satiety smoothie" called "LightFull". I always see these next to the yogurts, cheeses, and other dairy products towards the back of the supermarket. Unlike dairy products aimed towards children (like Gogurt and Trix yogurt), these smoothies tend to be located upon the very top few shelves at an adult's eye level. LightFull shares a nearly identical form as the products my mom enjoyed throughout my childhood.
The colors are bright and warm. Red and light yellow appear to be the dominant colors. Much of the red is contained in an image of a pile of ripe strawberries at the base of the bottle. The strawberry image appears to have been heavily altered via photo-editing software. The contrast has been increased causing the strawberries to appear unnaturally shiny and clean. And the saturation has also been increased to make the red of the strawberries even redder and the green leaves atop the strawberries rather yellowish. Such corrections further add to the warmth of the colors.
Against the red of the strawberries is a white label proclaiming that the smoothie contains a whopping 5 grams of fiber and protein. This white label stands out against the red strawberry image in the background. Above it, the words "strawberry bliss" also stand out, but in a different way; the words are white upon a strawberry-red background that is difficult to distinguish from the strawberries themselves when viewed from afar. Thus, it is mostly the "strawberry bliss" wording that stands out.
Above the strawberries, there is a small image that does not seem to fit will with the warm, strawberry-focused theme apparent on the rest of the bottle's front: a comically thin woman drawn in cool black and white appears to be in the process of leaping. In my eyes, it seems so visually out of place and unexpected, that I didn't notice it until I got home (when I first glanced at it, I thought it was writing). The woman has long, flowing hair and is wearing over-sized shorts and a tank top, not a dress, and tennis shoes with socks. Based on her outfit, perhaps she is jogging or exercising (which is likely considering that this is a diet beverage). Her hands are raised above her head as she appears to be juggling a tiny money bag, book, clock, and house.
The words "Surprisingly Filling", "Satiety Smoothie", "LightFULL" and "ALL NATURAL 90 LITTLE CALORIES"seemed to be stacked below the cap. The different-sized font and curvature of the letters causes this stack of words to form an upside-down triangle which is completed by the image of the leaping lady. This emphasizes the odd hourglass shape of the bottle, which, based on my experience with the beverage, does not exist for the purpose of allowing you to hold the bottle more easily. The "ALL NATURAL 90 LITTLE CALORIES" is in black and red, with the 90 in red and the rest in black; this causes the 90 to stand out the most. The phrase seems to seem a bit awkward in the context of all the titles because, if one reads top to bottom, it describes the product before you actually find out what the product is by reading the title. "LightFULL" and "Satiety Smoothie" have interesting coloration. Each is half in pink and half in red. This is the only place on the front of the bottle where a significant amount of a solid pink color appears. Interestingly, the "Light" part of "LightFULL" is pink, which can also be described as light red. The "Satiety" part of "Satiety Smoothie" is also pink, but unlike the "Light", it stands out much less because it is smaller and each letter is not outlined in red. The font of these two sets of words is very youthful looking; the curves of the letters are over-emphasized (especially that of the letter 'U'), the capitalization seems to alternate (which I did not completely capture in my typing because I'm unsure of what is supposed to be a capital letter and what is not due to the size of the letters), each line that would have been straight had this been Times New Roman font is slightly curved and has varying width. "Surprisingly Filling" is almost plain in appearance compared to all that's located above it, but somehow, this plainness draws the eye.
The wordy sides and back of the product echo the same visual themes seen on the front:
The right side of the product restates the title of the product and reiterates the points made on the front regarding nutrition. The left side states the meaning of satiety in simple, colloquial terms ("It means you're full") and contains a very promotional letter from the "LightFull Foods Co-founders") complete with illegible signatures. They claim that LightFull is a delicious, quick, easy, and very healthy food fix for busy women. The back of the product contains the typical nutrition information box that we see on almost all of our food products. The nutrition facts provide solid evidence for the claim that the product is healthy. Above the nutrition facts are directions in the same goofy, youthful font as is seen on the front. These directions command the consumer to shake before drinking and refrigerate the product. They also command the consumer to "Achieve Satiety" presumably by drinking the satiety smoothie.
I opened the bottle expecting a thick, pink, yogurt-y smoothie with bits of strawberry in it. Instead I got an almost transparent beige beverage that was the consistency of water. This texture and appearance coupled with the grossly sweet "strawberry" flavor made for a disgusting beverage. I felt full afterwards, but it was they way you feel full after seeing someone throw up; you're so disgusted that you don't feel in the mood for food.
Diet products have a bad reputation for tasting gross and my experience with this product definitely corroborated this. Thus, many companies choose to use euphemisms for "diet": "sugar free", "light", "low calorie", "healthy", "zero calories", and even "all natural" are common euphemisms. LightFull is doing the same thing when they state that their product is a "Satiety Smoothie". The word "diet" cannot be found anywhere on this bottle. Instead I only find a few of the euphemisms for the word "diet" mentioned above.
Because of the grossness associated with diet foods, it is in LightFull Food's best interest to portray their product as not only euphemistically diet but also delicious and appetizing. And indeed, nearly every single aspect of the front of the product is there to convey either of the above. It is astounding how well thought out the packaging of the product is. Warm colors like red and yellow have long been thought by scientists to arouse hunger. Cooler colors often do the opposite; studies show that people who eat food off of blue plates will eat less than those eating off of yellow plates. The strawberries, which contribute to much of the red on the bottle, are graphically altered so that they look more appetizing. They are made more red and they are very clean looking. Studies show that people highly prefer to eat food that is the correct color; a picture of a blue, green, or purple strawberry will seem highly unappetizing unlike the red strawberry. Thus, the red of the strawberries is emphasized. Imagine if the image of the strawberries showed that the strawberries were dusty or had dirt on them; how appetizing would that be? Thus the strawberries are made to look almost squeaky clean. And on the strawberries, "Strawberry Bliss" is written. To me, this implies that the beverage is just so delicious that it will induce a state of bliss from the strawberry taste alone. This along with the strawberry image is what bolstered my expectation of a pink beverage with strawberry bits in it; it's what I'm used to getting from tasty strawberry-flavored dairy products. Unfortunately, my expectations were not met with this product. But I'm sure I would have been less disappointed (and also less willing to drink the beverage) if they'd shown the brown wateriness that the smoothie actually was.
The image of the woman serves several purposes. Based on her outfit, it appears that she is exercising in some way which delicately conveys that the product is a diet beverage. She is simultaneously juggling symobls of money, work (or school), time, and home. Based on her huge smile, she looks like she's having a good time doing so, despite that fact that she appears to be in quite a hurry. In a way, LightFull Foods is saying "we understand you". They use this little picture to convey "diet" along with the ideas that modern women have many roles that they must juggle in order to live their lives: wife, employee, mother, caretaker, student, etc. LightFull Foods shows a woman literally juggling symbols of all of these roles and difficulties. The literal interpretation of the word "juggle" (which is often used when describing busy people) conveys that although the woman is smiling, her life is tough. Apparently, LightFull Foods wants you to know that they understand your struggles. Apparently, they understand that it's hard to juggle all of your different roles and duties in today's world. Apparently, they understand that this makes it hard for many women to diet. LightFull Food's solution and answer to dieting women's troubles: a satiety smoothie. The sides of the bottle underscores my point; in the letter to the consumer, the founders begin by saying "All our lives we've longed for a convenient snack that helps us stay healthy [diet euphemism] while juggling life's responsibilities [LightFull Foods apparently understands]. That's why we created LightFull Satiety Smoothie [now buy our product!]..."
"ALL NATURAL 90 LITTLE CALORIES", "Satiety Smoothie", and "Surprisingly Filling" are direct euphemisms for the fact that the product is a diet beverage that is meant to decrease hunger so that the consumer eats less and looses weight. Even the shape of the bottle itself shows this. It's hourglass-shaped – the same shape that's often described as the most desirable female body shape there is. Many dieting women will describe how their "shooting for that perfect hourglass figure". And LightFull Foods hints that if you drink their smoothie, that shape is attainable. They'll even remind you of what it looks like by making the bottle an hourglass shape.
Finally, the title of the product along with the appearance of that title practically scream "delicious diet food". The "Light" part of "LightFULL" on the front is lighter in color than the red seen on the rest of the bottle. This serves to visually communicate the diet euphemism "light". The "FULL" part of "LightFULL" is in all capital letters. These large, full letters communicate the feeling of satiety. Fullness is directly reiterated in the "Satiety Smoothie" part via the word "satiety". Also, the word "smoothie" is used (as opposed to beverage) in order to make the product more appetizing an dessert-like. Further underscoring the claim that the product is pleasant and delicious is the way the name of the product sounds. Say "LightFull" outloud and try saying the letter "d" in front of it. It sounds like "delightful"; in fact, it's only one phonetic syllable away from actually being the word "delightful". Unfortunately, this so-called smoothie is far from the delightfully delicious satiety smoothie that LightFull Foods tries so hard to make it appear to be. Perhaps "SguSting" would be a more honest name for this product.
Everyone who saw my pregnant mother thought that I'd be a boy; my mom had planned on naming me "Ryan". Friends and family gave my mom blue and red onesies, baby t-shirts, and shorts at the baby shower held prior to my birth. In fact, many early photos of me show me wearing the aforementioned "boy clothes" despite my female gender. The incorrect assumption about my gender was spurred by one simple fact: my mom was enormous during the pregnancy. She ended up gaining 75 pounds – a very large amount of weight for a petite 16-year-old. Friends and family interpreted the huge weight gain as a sign of a male child.
After I was born, what I call the "perpetual diet" began as my mom struggled to loose the weight she gained. Since then and throughout my entire life outside of the womb, my mom has been on a diet. Despite having long lost all of the weight she gained during pregnancy, my mom continues to diet. And the diet never ever ends.
Ergo, I have become far too familiar with practically any diet food or product that you can conceive of. While I was growing up, my mom was particularly partial to diet yogurts and smoothies. I have a surprisingly large amount of childhood memories of my mom organizing all her diet smoothies in the fridge after a trip to the grocery store. Thus, when I see these, I become quite nostalgic:
The product in the picture is a "satiety smoothie" called "LightFull". I always see these next to the yogurts, cheeses, and other dairy products towards the back of the supermarket. Unlike dairy products aimed towards children (like Gogurt and Trix yogurt), these smoothies tend to be located upon the very top few shelves at an adult's eye level. LightFull shares a nearly identical form as the products my mom enjoyed throughout my childhood.
The colors are bright and warm. Red and light yellow appear to be the dominant colors. Much of the red is contained in an image of a pile of ripe strawberries at the base of the bottle. The strawberry image appears to have been heavily altered via photo-editing software. The contrast has been increased causing the strawberries to appear unnaturally shiny and clean. And the saturation has also been increased to make the red of the strawberries even redder and the green leaves atop the strawberries rather yellowish. Such corrections further add to the warmth of the colors.
Against the red of the strawberries is a white label proclaiming that the smoothie contains a whopping 5 grams of fiber and protein. This white label stands out against the red strawberry image in the background. Above it, the words "strawberry bliss" also stand out, but in a different way; the words are white upon a strawberry-red background that is difficult to distinguish from the strawberries themselves when viewed from afar. Thus, it is mostly the "strawberry bliss" wording that stands out.
Above the strawberries, there is a small image that does not seem to fit will with the warm, strawberry-focused theme apparent on the rest of the bottle's front: a comically thin woman drawn in cool black and white appears to be in the process of leaping. In my eyes, it seems so visually out of place and unexpected, that I didn't notice it until I got home (when I first glanced at it, I thought it was writing). The woman has long, flowing hair and is wearing over-sized shorts and a tank top, not a dress, and tennis shoes with socks. Based on her outfit, perhaps she is jogging or exercising (which is likely considering that this is a diet beverage). Her hands are raised above her head as she appears to be juggling a tiny money bag, book, clock, and house.
The words "Surprisingly Filling", "Satiety Smoothie", "LightFULL" and "ALL NATURAL 90 LITTLE CALORIES"seemed to be stacked below the cap. The different-sized font and curvature of the letters causes this stack of words to form an upside-down triangle which is completed by the image of the leaping lady. This emphasizes the odd hourglass shape of the bottle, which, based on my experience with the beverage, does not exist for the purpose of allowing you to hold the bottle more easily. The "ALL NATURAL 90 LITTLE CALORIES" is in black and red, with the 90 in red and the rest in black; this causes the 90 to stand out the most. The phrase seems to seem a bit awkward in the context of all the titles because, if one reads top to bottom, it describes the product before you actually find out what the product is by reading the title. "LightFULL" and "Satiety Smoothie" have interesting coloration. Each is half in pink and half in red. This is the only place on the front of the bottle where a significant amount of a solid pink color appears. Interestingly, the "Light" part of "LightFULL" is pink, which can also be described as light red. The "Satiety" part of "Satiety Smoothie" is also pink, but unlike the "Light", it stands out much less because it is smaller and each letter is not outlined in red. The font of these two sets of words is very youthful looking; the curves of the letters are over-emphasized (especially that of the letter 'U'), the capitalization seems to alternate (which I did not completely capture in my typing because I'm unsure of what is supposed to be a capital letter and what is not due to the size of the letters), each line that would have been straight had this been Times New Roman font is slightly curved and has varying width. "Surprisingly Filling" is almost plain in appearance compared to all that's located above it, but somehow, this plainness draws the eye.
The wordy sides and back of the product echo the same visual themes seen on the front:
The right side of the product restates the title of the product and reiterates the points made on the front regarding nutrition. The left side states the meaning of satiety in simple, colloquial terms ("It means you're full") and contains a very promotional letter from the "LightFull Foods Co-founders") complete with illegible signatures. They claim that LightFull is a delicious, quick, easy, and very healthy food fix for busy women. The back of the product contains the typical nutrition information box that we see on almost all of our food products. The nutrition facts provide solid evidence for the claim that the product is healthy. Above the nutrition facts are directions in the same goofy, youthful font as is seen on the front. These directions command the consumer to shake before drinking and refrigerate the product. They also command the consumer to "Achieve Satiety" presumably by drinking the satiety smoothie.I opened the bottle expecting a thick, pink, yogurt-y smoothie with bits of strawberry in it. Instead I got an almost transparent beige beverage that was the consistency of water. This texture and appearance coupled with the grossly sweet "strawberry" flavor made for a disgusting beverage. I felt full afterwards, but it was they way you feel full after seeing someone throw up; you're so disgusted that you don't feel in the mood for food.
Diet products have a bad reputation for tasting gross and my experience with this product definitely corroborated this. Thus, many companies choose to use euphemisms for "diet": "sugar free", "light", "low calorie", "healthy", "zero calories", and even "all natural" are common euphemisms. LightFull is doing the same thing when they state that their product is a "Satiety Smoothie". The word "diet" cannot be found anywhere on this bottle. Instead I only find a few of the euphemisms for the word "diet" mentioned above.
Because of the grossness associated with diet foods, it is in LightFull Food's best interest to portray their product as not only euphemistically diet but also delicious and appetizing. And indeed, nearly every single aspect of the front of the product is there to convey either of the above. It is astounding how well thought out the packaging of the product is. Warm colors like red and yellow have long been thought by scientists to arouse hunger. Cooler colors often do the opposite; studies show that people who eat food off of blue plates will eat less than those eating off of yellow plates. The strawberries, which contribute to much of the red on the bottle, are graphically altered so that they look more appetizing. They are made more red and they are very clean looking. Studies show that people highly prefer to eat food that is the correct color; a picture of a blue, green, or purple strawberry will seem highly unappetizing unlike the red strawberry. Thus, the red of the strawberries is emphasized. Imagine if the image of the strawberries showed that the strawberries were dusty or had dirt on them; how appetizing would that be? Thus the strawberries are made to look almost squeaky clean. And on the strawberries, "Strawberry Bliss" is written. To me, this implies that the beverage is just so delicious that it will induce a state of bliss from the strawberry taste alone. This along with the strawberry image is what bolstered my expectation of a pink beverage with strawberry bits in it; it's what I'm used to getting from tasty strawberry-flavored dairy products. Unfortunately, my expectations were not met with this product. But I'm sure I would have been less disappointed (and also less willing to drink the beverage) if they'd shown the brown wateriness that the smoothie actually was.
The image of the woman serves several purposes. Based on her outfit, it appears that she is exercising in some way which delicately conveys that the product is a diet beverage. She is simultaneously juggling symobls of money, work (or school), time, and home. Based on her huge smile, she looks like she's having a good time doing so, despite that fact that she appears to be in quite a hurry. In a way, LightFull Foods is saying "we understand you". They use this little picture to convey "diet" along with the ideas that modern women have many roles that they must juggle in order to live their lives: wife, employee, mother, caretaker, student, etc. LightFull Foods shows a woman literally juggling symbols of all of these roles and difficulties. The literal interpretation of the word "juggle" (which is often used when describing busy people) conveys that although the woman is smiling, her life is tough. Apparently, LightFull Foods wants you to know that they understand your struggles. Apparently, they understand that it's hard to juggle all of your different roles and duties in today's world. Apparently, they understand that this makes it hard for many women to diet. LightFull Food's solution and answer to dieting women's troubles: a satiety smoothie. The sides of the bottle underscores my point; in the letter to the consumer, the founders begin by saying "All our lives we've longed for a convenient snack that helps us stay healthy [diet euphemism] while juggling life's responsibilities [LightFull Foods apparently understands]. That's why we created LightFull Satiety Smoothie [now buy our product!]..."
"ALL NATURAL 90 LITTLE CALORIES", "Satiety Smoothie", and "Surprisingly Filling" are direct euphemisms for the fact that the product is a diet beverage that is meant to decrease hunger so that the consumer eats less and looses weight. Even the shape of the bottle itself shows this. It's hourglass-shaped – the same shape that's often described as the most desirable female body shape there is. Many dieting women will describe how their "shooting for that perfect hourglass figure". And LightFull Foods hints that if you drink their smoothie, that shape is attainable. They'll even remind you of what it looks like by making the bottle an hourglass shape.
Finally, the title of the product along with the appearance of that title practically scream "delicious diet food". The "Light" part of "LightFULL" on the front is lighter in color than the red seen on the rest of the bottle. This serves to visually communicate the diet euphemism "light". The "FULL" part of "LightFULL" is in all capital letters. These large, full letters communicate the feeling of satiety. Fullness is directly reiterated in the "Satiety Smoothie" part via the word "satiety". Also, the word "smoothie" is used (as opposed to beverage) in order to make the product more appetizing an dessert-like. Further underscoring the claim that the product is pleasant and delicious is the way the name of the product sounds. Say "LightFull" outloud and try saying the letter "d" in front of it. It sounds like "delightful"; in fact, it's only one phonetic syllable away from actually being the word "delightful". Unfortunately, this so-called smoothie is far from the delightfully delicious satiety smoothie that LightFull Foods tries so hard to make it appear to be. Perhaps "SguSting" would be a more honest name for this product.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Controlling the Audience: Media and Money
It was 2AM on a Friday night. My house was dark and quiet, except for the light of my computer and the "click-click-click" of the keyboard as my fiance typed furiously. "Josh, let's go to bed now; I'm really tired," I sighed while moving a mountain of pillows off my bed. It had been a long day and I was doubting my ability to keep my eyes open any longer. Josh replied with a halfhearted "okay" and the typing ceased. He was reading and participating in an online message board (also known as a "forum") on the website SMN News, the place for "pure metal news". A forum is similar to a chat room, except it is more organized and much slower-moving; this allows users to put more thought into their posts. In fact, I often see posts in forums that could easily be classified as essays. Because forums permit longer, more thoughtful messages, many perceive forums as superior to the so-called sleazy chat rooms which now tend to be associated with gullible preteens and perverted pedophiles.
I began to nag: "Josh, turn off the computer. I'd really like to get to bed and I can't sleep with all the ambient light! Turn it off, now!"
"Okay, okay, just a second–let me finish reading this one post." Josh replied, irritated with my isistence. Wondering what in the world could be so interesting to read at this hour, I began to walk over to the desk where Josh was sitting. He scrolled down as he quickly scanned the text. As he continued scrolling, I saw something absolutely horrifying in someone's "signature" (a signature is something that is located below all of the posts of a specific person; it can contain text [often famous quotes] or pictures). Josh didn't even seem to notice the picture as he continued reading and scrolling down the page.
"Stop! Stop! What is that? Oh my gosh!" I exclaimed as I saw this very graphic and disturbing photo. I had heard of the self-immolation of Buddhist monks protesting of the unfair treatment of Buddhists in South Vietnam during the late 50s and early 60s, but I had never seen an actual picture of the incident (despite the fact that it is a very famous picture). The last place I expected to see it was in the signature of some anonymous person on a message board for fans of heavy metal music at 2:00 in the morning. Shocked and confused, I asked Josh why in the world someone would put such a picture in their signature. Equally confused (but not too shocked), Josh told me that some of the people on this message board were kind of weird and that they probably thought the picture was cool.
"Aren't there any rules for the forum? Like a terms of use page? You'd think they'd get in trouble for that; I can see that they aren't talking about Buddhist persecution in the 60s and it seems like they have the picture displayed just to shock people. " I responded.
Josh's response was surprising for me: "No, there isn't a terms of use page. It doesn't exist. There aren't really any rules except for don't piss off the administrators! Actually, I'm not even sure about that. I've never even seen them actually do anything other than post in the forums like everyone else." With that, and a few minutes of reading about Thích Quảng Đức (the monk in the picture) on Wikipedia we were off to bed.
A couple of years ago, I used to frequent the forums of GameFAQs and to this day I still visit the forums of Etsy. Both of these websites have a set of rules (formally called "terms of use" or "TOU") for the forums that are enforced by administrators or "mods" (short for moderator). Mods are like forum police; they are people who are present in the forums and have the power to enforce the rules laid out for the forums. They can delete posts, delete entire topics, suspend your account so that you can no longer post, and in some cases, completely ban individuals from using the forums. The rules they enforce vary from many to few to absolutely none. But, why do they have such variance? What are they trying to accomplish by having "terms of use"? Does there actually need to be such control in internet forums? Who and what exactly are they trying to control?
First, I'd like to discuss the strictest of these three websites: GameFAQs. GameFAQs is a site where you can find "video game cheats, reviews, FAQs, message boards, and more". It was started by Jeff Veasey who goes by the username "CJayC" in the forums. GameFAQs has the longest list of forum rules I have ever seen in my life. Offensive material, vulgar language or substitutes for such, posting languages other than English (this is seen as "disruptive" with the English-dominated forums), "flaming" (clearly insulting another user), "trolling" (deliberately trying to annoy or offend other users), illegal activity, advertising, off-topic postings, disruptive behavior, plot spoilers, "flooding" (flooding a certain message board with disruptive topics or posts), impersonation, harassment, and stalking are not allowed. These rules are enforced by mods who are often trusted users that volunteer to police the forums.
Each forum on GameFAQs represents a different topic or theme. Within each forum are topics created by the users of that forum. And within the topic, there are posts (comments on the topic and what the topic-creator began the topic by saying). This type of organization is fairly standard and is seen across almost all sites containing forums. On GameFAQs, there is a forum entitled "Current Events" (affectionately known as "CE" by those who visit that forum). This is ironic considering the fact this particular forum is a social forum and practically every topic within the forum breaks the off-topic postings rule mentioned in the TOU. However, this is permitted and topics not related to current events are not deleted or "locked" (when a topic is closed so that no other users can post within the topic).
CE's audience/participants mainly consist of young adults (90% male) in high school and college (the average age for those who visit GameFAQs is 23). All of them share a common interest in video games. Practically all of them are American and the ethnic makeup of those on CE is similar to that of UC Davis. CE is a place of extremes and randomness; topics tend to be either crass, thoughtful, or just plain weird. On a recent visit to CE, I saw these topics: "What's a good book I should read?", "I just peed in my sister's tea", "I'm a socialist", "Would you do Michelle Obama?", and "Hey guys my left arm keeps twitching". There were literally thousands more, but I felt that this selection best captured the arbitrariness, borderline vulgarity, and quirkiness of CE. With such themes not only apparent in CE, but in all of the GameFAQs forums, it seems Jeff Veasey created the TOU in order to maintain peace and order as effectively as possible in the forums without inhibiting lively discussion.
But, I'm absolutely positive that there is more to the GameFAQs TOU than this. GameFAQs is a extremely popular website; literally millions of people visit GameFAQs each month (and around 40% of them visit the message boards). In 2003, GameFAQs was sold to CNET Networks for over 2 million dollars. Why was GameFAQs worth so much? Because it allowed whoever owned the site to make a huge amount of money by allowing companies to pay to advertise on GameFAQs.
Advertising is a significant part of GameFAQs; practically every page one visits contains and advertisement on it. Without these advertisements, CNET would not be able to make money off of GameFAQs. In order to maintain the popularity of GameFAQs (and keep the advertisers advertising), the TOU exists. Without the TOU, the small amount of peace and order that the forums currently have would likely be lost. And if this peace and order were lost, people who visit GameFAQs my find it unpleasant to visit and instead visit a different website. This would decrease the popularity of GameFAQs and thus decrease the value of the site to advertisers, which directly translates into less money for CNET. Also, if the aforementioned peace and order were lost, especially offensive material would likely become more prevalent on the site (as it is in the rule-less SMN News). This may deter companies from advertising on GameFAQs for fear of being associated with offensive material (and thus loosing business from being associated with such material).
The bottom line for GameFAQs' TOU: it's all about money. GameFAQs does what it can in order to maximize profits from advertisers. Control in the forums is integral to making money. The TOU is specifically made to maintain GameFAQs' traffic while keeping the offensive content from reaching very high levels. This ensures that companies will continue to pay big bucks in order to advertise on GameFAQs.
This explanation also applies to Etsy. Etsy is a website devoted to "buying and selling all things handmade". People can join the site and create their own shops where they can sell goods that they make by hand. By joining the site, others can buy from these sellers. In fact, most people are both buyers and sellers. There are forums on Etsy that are similar in form to those of GameFAQs, but the content is vastly different.
The average age of those who participate in the Etsy forums is 34. Almost all of these people are female and have children. Many of them are artists/crafters, and those who aren't are, at the very least, interested in arts and crafts. Ergo, many of the topics present in the Etsy forums concern art, family, and successfully running a shop on Etsy. The rules of Etsy are called the "Dos and Don'ts", which is noticeably less formal than the "Terms of Use" of GameFAQs. This reduced formality is present in the list of rules. The rules are displayed in a short, simple, bulleted list. The Dos and Don'ts encourage respect for others as well as staying on-topic; they discourage flaming, "calling out" (saying negative things about a someone [usually their business practices] and revealing the username of that person), discussing the details of any transaction, using an alternate account to post in the forums, and posting private information about others. One of the most noticeable features of this list is that there is no rule on vulgar language or offensive material. However, there does not need to be such a rule for two reasons: 1) those who use the Etsy forums tend to not post particularly offensive material and vulgarity is fairly sparse and 2) "the staff reserves the right to lock any topic for any reason, including preemptively locking a topic that has the potential for getting out of control". The latter reason can encompass practically anything because nearly everything has at least the potential for "getting out of control". However, Etsy mods (which are paid employees of Etsy that have a variety of duties outside of policing the forums) rarely utilize the aforementioned right and topics tend to be locked only when users are in a virtual screaming match.
Unlike GameFAQs, companies cannot pay to advertise on Etsy. Instead of making money via advertisers, Etsy makes its money via the sellers who run their shops on Etsy. For each item listed and each item sold there is a fee (20 cents for each item listed and 3.5% of every sale). There is no need to keep offensive content to a minimum in order to avoid scaring off potential advertisers. Also, only about 1% of those registered on Etsy actually visit the forums. Needless to say, that is an extremely small amount of people. For Etsy, maintaining peace and order in the forums is not a top priority–it doesn't need to be. If the forums become particularly nasty and people leave Etsy as a result, it will not affect Etsy's profits significantly. Thus, Etsy does the bare minimum to maintain peace and order in the forums simply because they don't actually need to do more. Etsy's audience is fairly docile and if people do choose to leave because of the content of the forums, it won't affect Etsy's profits very much. Once again, the crux of the rules is money and the maintenance of Etsy's profits.
Just like GameFAQs and Etsy, money is behind the absence of rules in the SMN News forums. SMN News is a site dedicated to the dark, intense, and almost always offensive genre of rock music known as "metal". SMN News' audience consists of those who enjoy metal ("metalheads") and (according to Josh, who visits the site on a daily basis) is mostly composed of males from the ages of 18 to 35. Discussion in the forums tends to remain on the topic of metal and that related to metal (e.g. playing guitar, members of bands that play metal, etc.). The majority of those who participate in the SMN News forums are fans of the metal subgenre known as "death metal". Death metal is particularly intense, extremely fast, very abrasive, and offensive by definition.
Unsurprisingly, offensive material is rampant on the SMN News forums. Pictures of really severe wounds, sexually explicit pictures of women, gore, and even burning monks are quite frequently displayed in the signatures of those who visit the SMN News forums. But, the companies (almost always individual bands and record labels within the metal genre) who advertise on SMN News do not seem to mind such offensive material. This is because offensive material is conducive to metal itself–especially the most popular subgenre of metal on SMN News: death metal. Incredibly crass content does not hurt the profits SMN News, but actually helps it by ensuring that the audience consists of "genuine" metalheads and those who will actually purchase the music being advertised (which has offensive content and tends to fall into the death metal category).
GameFAQs, Etsy, and SMN News are all media that are very deeply intertwined with making money. They do so in different ways and thus have very different rules for their respective forums. But, these rules (or the lack thereof) are not for the greater good; they are tools for maximizing financial gain, as are their respective audiences.
I began to nag: "Josh, turn off the computer. I'd really like to get to bed and I can't sleep with all the ambient light! Turn it off, now!"
"Okay, okay, just a second–let me finish reading this one post." Josh replied, irritated with my isistence. Wondering what in the world could be so interesting to read at this hour, I began to walk over to the desk where Josh was sitting. He scrolled down as he quickly scanned the text. As he continued scrolling, I saw something absolutely horrifying in someone's "signature" (a signature is something that is located below all of the posts of a specific person; it can contain text [often famous quotes] or pictures). Josh didn't even seem to notice the picture as he continued reading and scrolling down the page.
"Stop! Stop! What is that? Oh my gosh!" I exclaimed as I saw this very graphic and disturbing photo. I had heard of the self-immolation of Buddhist monks protesting of the unfair treatment of Buddhists in South Vietnam during the late 50s and early 60s, but I had never seen an actual picture of the incident (despite the fact that it is a very famous picture). The last place I expected to see it was in the signature of some anonymous person on a message board for fans of heavy metal music at 2:00 in the morning. Shocked and confused, I asked Josh why in the world someone would put such a picture in their signature. Equally confused (but not too shocked), Josh told me that some of the people on this message board were kind of weird and that they probably thought the picture was cool.
"Aren't there any rules for the forum? Like a terms of use page? You'd think they'd get in trouble for that; I can see that they aren't talking about Buddhist persecution in the 60s and it seems like they have the picture displayed just to shock people. " I responded.
Josh's response was surprising for me: "No, there isn't a terms of use page. It doesn't exist. There aren't really any rules except for don't piss off the administrators! Actually, I'm not even sure about that. I've never even seen them actually do anything other than post in the forums like everyone else." With that, and a few minutes of reading about Thích Quảng Đức (the monk in the picture) on Wikipedia we were off to bed.
A couple of years ago, I used to frequent the forums of GameFAQs and to this day I still visit the forums of Etsy. Both of these websites have a set of rules (formally called "terms of use" or "TOU") for the forums that are enforced by administrators or "mods" (short for moderator). Mods are like forum police; they are people who are present in the forums and have the power to enforce the rules laid out for the forums. They can delete posts, delete entire topics, suspend your account so that you can no longer post, and in some cases, completely ban individuals from using the forums. The rules they enforce vary from many to few to absolutely none. But, why do they have such variance? What are they trying to accomplish by having "terms of use"? Does there actually need to be such control in internet forums? Who and what exactly are they trying to control?
First, I'd like to discuss the strictest of these three websites: GameFAQs. GameFAQs is a site where you can find "video game cheats, reviews, FAQs, message boards, and more". It was started by Jeff Veasey who goes by the username "CJayC" in the forums. GameFAQs has the longest list of forum rules I have ever seen in my life. Offensive material, vulgar language or substitutes for such, posting languages other than English (this is seen as "disruptive" with the English-dominated forums), "flaming" (clearly insulting another user), "trolling" (deliberately trying to annoy or offend other users), illegal activity, advertising, off-topic postings, disruptive behavior, plot spoilers, "flooding" (flooding a certain message board with disruptive topics or posts), impersonation, harassment, and stalking are not allowed. These rules are enforced by mods who are often trusted users that volunteer to police the forums.
Each forum on GameFAQs represents a different topic or theme. Within each forum are topics created by the users of that forum. And within the topic, there are posts (comments on the topic and what the topic-creator began the topic by saying). This type of organization is fairly standard and is seen across almost all sites containing forums. On GameFAQs, there is a forum entitled "Current Events" (affectionately known as "CE" by those who visit that forum). This is ironic considering the fact this particular forum is a social forum and practically every topic within the forum breaks the off-topic postings rule mentioned in the TOU. However, this is permitted and topics not related to current events are not deleted or "locked" (when a topic is closed so that no other users can post within the topic).
CE's audience/participants mainly consist of young adults (90% male) in high school and college (the average age for those who visit GameFAQs is 23). All of them share a common interest in video games. Practically all of them are American and the ethnic makeup of those on CE is similar to that of UC Davis. CE is a place of extremes and randomness; topics tend to be either crass, thoughtful, or just plain weird. On a recent visit to CE, I saw these topics: "What's a good book I should read?", "I just peed in my sister's tea", "I'm a socialist", "Would you do Michelle Obama?", and "Hey guys my left arm keeps twitching". There were literally thousands more, but I felt that this selection best captured the arbitrariness, borderline vulgarity, and quirkiness of CE. With such themes not only apparent in CE, but in all of the GameFAQs forums, it seems Jeff Veasey created the TOU in order to maintain peace and order as effectively as possible in the forums without inhibiting lively discussion.
But, I'm absolutely positive that there is more to the GameFAQs TOU than this. GameFAQs is a extremely popular website; literally millions of people visit GameFAQs each month (and around 40% of them visit the message boards). In 2003, GameFAQs was sold to CNET Networks for over 2 million dollars. Why was GameFAQs worth so much? Because it allowed whoever owned the site to make a huge amount of money by allowing companies to pay to advertise on GameFAQs.
Advertising is a significant part of GameFAQs; practically every page one visits contains and advertisement on it. Without these advertisements, CNET would not be able to make money off of GameFAQs. In order to maintain the popularity of GameFAQs (and keep the advertisers advertising), the TOU exists. Without the TOU, the small amount of peace and order that the forums currently have would likely be lost. And if this peace and order were lost, people who visit GameFAQs my find it unpleasant to visit and instead visit a different website. This would decrease the popularity of GameFAQs and thus decrease the value of the site to advertisers, which directly translates into less money for CNET. Also, if the aforementioned peace and order were lost, especially offensive material would likely become more prevalent on the site (as it is in the rule-less SMN News). This may deter companies from advertising on GameFAQs for fear of being associated with offensive material (and thus loosing business from being associated with such material).
The bottom line for GameFAQs' TOU: it's all about money. GameFAQs does what it can in order to maximize profits from advertisers. Control in the forums is integral to making money. The TOU is specifically made to maintain GameFAQs' traffic while keeping the offensive content from reaching very high levels. This ensures that companies will continue to pay big bucks in order to advertise on GameFAQs.
This explanation also applies to Etsy. Etsy is a website devoted to "buying and selling all things handmade". People can join the site and create their own shops where they can sell goods that they make by hand. By joining the site, others can buy from these sellers. In fact, most people are both buyers and sellers. There are forums on Etsy that are similar in form to those of GameFAQs, but the content is vastly different.
The average age of those who participate in the Etsy forums is 34. Almost all of these people are female and have children. Many of them are artists/crafters, and those who aren't are, at the very least, interested in arts and crafts. Ergo, many of the topics present in the Etsy forums concern art, family, and successfully running a shop on Etsy. The rules of Etsy are called the "Dos and Don'ts", which is noticeably less formal than the "Terms of Use" of GameFAQs. This reduced formality is present in the list of rules. The rules are displayed in a short, simple, bulleted list. The Dos and Don'ts encourage respect for others as well as staying on-topic; they discourage flaming, "calling out" (saying negative things about a someone [usually their business practices] and revealing the username of that person), discussing the details of any transaction, using an alternate account to post in the forums, and posting private information about others. One of the most noticeable features of this list is that there is no rule on vulgar language or offensive material. However, there does not need to be such a rule for two reasons: 1) those who use the Etsy forums tend to not post particularly offensive material and vulgarity is fairly sparse and 2) "the staff reserves the right to lock any topic for any reason, including preemptively locking a topic that has the potential for getting out of control". The latter reason can encompass practically anything because nearly everything has at least the potential for "getting out of control". However, Etsy mods (which are paid employees of Etsy that have a variety of duties outside of policing the forums) rarely utilize the aforementioned right and topics tend to be locked only when users are in a virtual screaming match.
Unlike GameFAQs, companies cannot pay to advertise on Etsy. Instead of making money via advertisers, Etsy makes its money via the sellers who run their shops on Etsy. For each item listed and each item sold there is a fee (20 cents for each item listed and 3.5% of every sale). There is no need to keep offensive content to a minimum in order to avoid scaring off potential advertisers. Also, only about 1% of those registered on Etsy actually visit the forums. Needless to say, that is an extremely small amount of people. For Etsy, maintaining peace and order in the forums is not a top priority–it doesn't need to be. If the forums become particularly nasty and people leave Etsy as a result, it will not affect Etsy's profits significantly. Thus, Etsy does the bare minimum to maintain peace and order in the forums simply because they don't actually need to do more. Etsy's audience is fairly docile and if people do choose to leave because of the content of the forums, it won't affect Etsy's profits very much. Once again, the crux of the rules is money and the maintenance of Etsy's profits.
Just like GameFAQs and Etsy, money is behind the absence of rules in the SMN News forums. SMN News is a site dedicated to the dark, intense, and almost always offensive genre of rock music known as "metal". SMN News' audience consists of those who enjoy metal ("metalheads") and (according to Josh, who visits the site on a daily basis) is mostly composed of males from the ages of 18 to 35. Discussion in the forums tends to remain on the topic of metal and that related to metal (e.g. playing guitar, members of bands that play metal, etc.). The majority of those who participate in the SMN News forums are fans of the metal subgenre known as "death metal". Death metal is particularly intense, extremely fast, very abrasive, and offensive by definition.
Unsurprisingly, offensive material is rampant on the SMN News forums. Pictures of really severe wounds, sexually explicit pictures of women, gore, and even burning monks are quite frequently displayed in the signatures of those who visit the SMN News forums. But, the companies (almost always individual bands and record labels within the metal genre) who advertise on SMN News do not seem to mind such offensive material. This is because offensive material is conducive to metal itself–especially the most popular subgenre of metal on SMN News: death metal. Incredibly crass content does not hurt the profits SMN News, but actually helps it by ensuring that the audience consists of "genuine" metalheads and those who will actually purchase the music being advertised (which has offensive content and tends to fall into the death metal category).
GameFAQs, Etsy, and SMN News are all media that are very deeply intertwined with making money. They do so in different ways and thus have very different rules for their respective forums. But, these rules (or the lack thereof) are not for the greater good; they are tools for maximizing financial gain, as are their respective audiences.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Sex on TV
Despite their popularity, I cannot stand sitcoms. Ironically, my good friend (and roommate) loves sitcoms. She watches a pretty hefty amount of TV and sitcoms are literally all she watches. When I imagine what it is like to be at home, I always imagine Seinfeld or Friends blaring somewhere in the background. I love my friend dearly, however, I often find myself wearing earplugs around the house to avoid hearing the cacophonous sitcoms. But, there is one exception: I Love Lucy.
I truly love I Love Lucy. I love it so much that at one point I seriously questioned my relationship of nearly five years with my (now) fiance because he was not a fan of the show. Fortunately, the show has grown on him and he no longer cringes when I sit for an hour and a half watching episode after episode of I Love Lucy.
As with all sitcoms, each episode of I Love Lucy is a story – a narrative. The main character, Lucy, gets into some kind of hilariously unrealistic predicament and her friend, Ethel, acts as her accomplice. In the end, Lucy's husband, Ricky, (despite Lucy's best efforts) discovers the trouble Lucy's gotten herself into and becomes angry (which also tends to be very funny). After all the craziness and anger has passed, Lucy and Ricky make up and somehow the predicament gets resolved: the end.
I Love Lucy ran from 1951 to about 1960 and most of the shows are in black and white. It is a fabulous example of how much narratives on TV have changed dramatically over the past 50 years. In 1951, Lucy (who was actually married to "Ricky" in real life [his real name is Desi Arnaz]) became pregnant with her first child. Since pregnancy tends to end up being very obvious, it was crucial that the writers worked the pregnancy into the narrative of the show. However, CBS (the producer) would not allow the word "pregnant" to be used in the show. The word "pregnant" implies that the person who is pregnant was "impregnated" at some point. And "impregnation" implies sexual intercourse. At that time, the implicaton of sex from the word "pregnant" was considered to be completely inappropriate for narratives on TV. Therefore, the word "expecting" along with "having a baby" were the only terms permitted by CBS to be used to describe Lucy's pregnancy.
Another interesting fact regarding what I Love Lucy reveals about narratives of the past are Lucy and Ricky's sleeping habits. On the show, when they go to bed, they go to two separate twin-sized beds in their bedroom. During that time, many people would have seen it as highly inappropriate to show Lucy and Ricky going to bed and entering the same bed when doing so. This is astounding considering the following facts: Lucy and Ricky are married, most people during that time did sleep in the same bed as their spouse, and sleeping in the same bed does not gurantee a sexual encounter. But, even the most miniscule implication of sex was not seen as appropriate for a wholesome TV sitcom at that time.
The dominant view of sex in TV narratives has changed dramatically since the 1950s. Consider this advertisement for the show Gossip Girl as well as this advertisement for the same show. Gossip Girl (which I've never actually seen) is a teen drama that deals with sex, drugs, partying, cliques, and other teen themes. To be fair, these advertisements were actually meant to provoke and shock people a bit. But, the bottom line is that Warner Brothers Television, who produces the show, allowed these advertisements to be displayed. Warner Brothers Television produces narratives for television (like Gossip Girl) where one of the dominant themes is often sex. According to research done at UCSB, about 66% of today's prime time TV shows contain some sexual content and, the majority of the time, those shown to be engaging in the act are not even married! This is an absolutely enormous change since the days of CBS disallowing the word "pregnant" as well as husband and wife sleeping in the same bed to be shown in I Love Lucy.
With such a gigantic change in such a tiny amount of time, one naturally may find themselves asking what in the world caused such a change. Some people blame the change on the so-called "declining morals of society". I profusely disagree with this answer; it implies that sex, despite the fact that is a very real and very normal part of human life, is bad and inappropriate for TV narratives. The true cause of such a dramatic change in the prevalence of sex in narratives on TV is the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
What do you think of when you imagine the 1960s? Many of us automatically think of tie-dye t-shirts, protests, hallucinogenic drugs, and a little thing called "free love". During the 1960s, millions of young people embraced sex as a beautiful and natural act that was very worthy of being enjoyed (even outside of marriage). This was the sexual revolution.
However, not everyone agreed with the views that many of the hippies of the 1960s had regarding sex. A significant portion of people saw such views as scandolous and sexual liberation as immoral. Even today, there remains a large amount of people who especially look down on this (and all) aspects of the hippie ethos. Despite continuing backlash, it is clear that the sexual revolutionaries are the ones who won. They are the ones responsible for the dramatic (and entertaining) changes that have occurred in the prevalence of sex in TV narratives as well as the huge changes in America's willingness to openly accept sex as a normal part of life.
I truly love I Love Lucy. I love it so much that at one point I seriously questioned my relationship of nearly five years with my (now) fiance because he was not a fan of the show. Fortunately, the show has grown on him and he no longer cringes when I sit for an hour and a half watching episode after episode of I Love Lucy.
As with all sitcoms, each episode of I Love Lucy is a story – a narrative. The main character, Lucy, gets into some kind of hilariously unrealistic predicament and her friend, Ethel, acts as her accomplice. In the end, Lucy's husband, Ricky, (despite Lucy's best efforts) discovers the trouble Lucy's gotten herself into and becomes angry (which also tends to be very funny). After all the craziness and anger has passed, Lucy and Ricky make up and somehow the predicament gets resolved: the end.
I Love Lucy ran from 1951 to about 1960 and most of the shows are in black and white. It is a fabulous example of how much narratives on TV have changed dramatically over the past 50 years. In 1951, Lucy (who was actually married to "Ricky" in real life [his real name is Desi Arnaz]) became pregnant with her first child. Since pregnancy tends to end up being very obvious, it was crucial that the writers worked the pregnancy into the narrative of the show. However, CBS (the producer) would not allow the word "pregnant" to be used in the show. The word "pregnant" implies that the person who is pregnant was "impregnated" at some point. And "impregnation" implies sexual intercourse. At that time, the implicaton of sex from the word "pregnant" was considered to be completely inappropriate for narratives on TV. Therefore, the word "expecting" along with "having a baby" were the only terms permitted by CBS to be used to describe Lucy's pregnancy.
Another interesting fact regarding what I Love Lucy reveals about narratives of the past are Lucy and Ricky's sleeping habits. On the show, when they go to bed, they go to two separate twin-sized beds in their bedroom. During that time, many people would have seen it as highly inappropriate to show Lucy and Ricky going to bed and entering the same bed when doing so. This is astounding considering the following facts: Lucy and Ricky are married, most people during that time did sleep in the same bed as their spouse, and sleeping in the same bed does not gurantee a sexual encounter. But, even the most miniscule implication of sex was not seen as appropriate for a wholesome TV sitcom at that time.
The dominant view of sex in TV narratives has changed dramatically since the 1950s. Consider this advertisement for the show Gossip Girl as well as this advertisement for the same show. Gossip Girl (which I've never actually seen) is a teen drama that deals with sex, drugs, partying, cliques, and other teen themes. To be fair, these advertisements were actually meant to provoke and shock people a bit. But, the bottom line is that Warner Brothers Television, who produces the show, allowed these advertisements to be displayed. Warner Brothers Television produces narratives for television (like Gossip Girl) where one of the dominant themes is often sex. According to research done at UCSB, about 66% of today's prime time TV shows contain some sexual content and, the majority of the time, those shown to be engaging in the act are not even married! This is an absolutely enormous change since the days of CBS disallowing the word "pregnant" as well as husband and wife sleeping in the same bed to be shown in I Love Lucy.
With such a gigantic change in such a tiny amount of time, one naturally may find themselves asking what in the world caused such a change. Some people blame the change on the so-called "declining morals of society". I profusely disagree with this answer; it implies that sex, despite the fact that is a very real and very normal part of human life, is bad and inappropriate for TV narratives. The true cause of such a dramatic change in the prevalence of sex in narratives on TV is the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
What do you think of when you imagine the 1960s? Many of us automatically think of tie-dye t-shirts, protests, hallucinogenic drugs, and a little thing called "free love". During the 1960s, millions of young people embraced sex as a beautiful and natural act that was very worthy of being enjoyed (even outside of marriage). This was the sexual revolution.
However, not everyone agreed with the views that many of the hippies of the 1960s had regarding sex. A significant portion of people saw such views as scandolous and sexual liberation as immoral. Even today, there remains a large amount of people who especially look down on this (and all) aspects of the hippie ethos. Despite continuing backlash, it is clear that the sexual revolutionaries are the ones who won. They are the ones responsible for the dramatic (and entertaining) changes that have occurred in the prevalence of sex in TV narratives as well as the huge changes in America's willingness to openly accept sex as a normal part of life.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
The Everyman's Burden
Today, I was unfortunate enough to witness this absolutely heinous advertisement. At first glance, it seems to have all the trappings of the average cheesy American advertisement. Mrs. Deserly, credible apparently because her husband lived on a Native American reservation, describes the sad situations of many of today's Native Americans and how her BlackBerry grants her the ability to help them while still being a good grandma.
However, when one takes a closer look at the imagery used in the commercial and listens carefully to what Mrs. Deserly is being paid to say, the whole thing reeks of the Noble Savage stereotype. This atrocious concept came about during the 18th century – it's about 300 years old. And, it is an arrogant and racist lie that has been used to patronize different groups of people (who conveniently tend fall into a variety of ethnic categories except for the Caucasian one) for far too long.
And now here we are; it is the year 2008. Zeitgeist, "the spirit of the age", seems to currently be driven by science, technology, modernity, progress, diversity, and "being green" (what that phrase even means is up for debate). The BlackBerry advertisement captures all of these themes perfectly, but it is profoundly ironic because it communicates such condescending, outdated ideas about Native Americans (specifically, the Noble Savage stereotype). Even more than the Noble Savage concept, this commercial reeks of another particularly offensive, antique idea: the "white man's burden".
While, the phrases used to describe the offending concepts may not be familiar to everyone, the concepts themselves ought to be. And, it is a shame that such ideas are present in things as mundane as advertisements. If these ideas are tolerated in simple things like commercials that actually tend to err on the side of political correctness as to not offend potential customers, what does this say about our culture? What does this say about all of us as individuals? Why are we tolerating this? How dare we turn a blind eye to such discriminatory ideas?
I guess it is far too easy to tune the ugly things out. It is far too easy to choose not to look closer. It is far too easy to lie to oneself and to perceive things differently on purpose. But I'd like to share a simple fact that was best stated by Neil Peart: "you can twist perceptions [but] reality won't budge". While we can easily ignore all the hateful, discriminatory, and racist concepts that permeate our day-to-day lives, they will still be a reality, even if we choose not to see them.
Do we truly want such hideous ideas to be part of our everyday reality? Turning a blind eye to such things will ensure that they remain ingrained in our lives for eternity.
However, when one takes a closer look at the imagery used in the commercial and listens carefully to what Mrs. Deserly is being paid to say, the whole thing reeks of the Noble Savage stereotype. This atrocious concept came about during the 18th century – it's about 300 years old. And, it is an arrogant and racist lie that has been used to patronize different groups of people (who conveniently tend fall into a variety of ethnic categories except for the Caucasian one) for far too long.
And now here we are; it is the year 2008. Zeitgeist, "the spirit of the age", seems to currently be driven by science, technology, modernity, progress, diversity, and "being green" (what that phrase even means is up for debate). The BlackBerry advertisement captures all of these themes perfectly, but it is profoundly ironic because it communicates such condescending, outdated ideas about Native Americans (specifically, the Noble Savage stereotype). Even more than the Noble Savage concept, this commercial reeks of another particularly offensive, antique idea: the "white man's burden".
While, the phrases used to describe the offending concepts may not be familiar to everyone, the concepts themselves ought to be. And, it is a shame that such ideas are present in things as mundane as advertisements. If these ideas are tolerated in simple things like commercials that actually tend to err on the side of political correctness as to not offend potential customers, what does this say about our culture? What does this say about all of us as individuals? Why are we tolerating this? How dare we turn a blind eye to such discriminatory ideas?
I guess it is far too easy to tune the ugly things out. It is far too easy to choose not to look closer. It is far too easy to lie to oneself and to perceive things differently on purpose. But I'd like to share a simple fact that was best stated by Neil Peart: "you can twist perceptions [but] reality won't budge". While we can easily ignore all the hateful, discriminatory, and racist concepts that permeate our day-to-day lives, they will still be a reality, even if we choose not to see them.
Do we truly want such hideous ideas to be part of our everyday reality? Turning a blind eye to such things will ensure that they remain ingrained in our lives for eternity.
Monday, August 4, 2008
On Blogging
Despite the fact that I spend the majority of my free time on the computer, I only recently learned what the word "blog" meant. At first, I heard it used in conversations between my peers. Soon, I started to see it frequently referenced in online news articles. And one day, I actually heard it on televised news. This spurred me to ask my fiance, Josh, about blogs.
When I asked him, there was a hint of amusement on his face in response to my ignorance. It seemed as everyone but me knew what blogs were. Fortunately, Josh enlightened me: "A blog is something people make online where people write about their lives and other stuff like politics."
But, that just didn't seem correct. I have always been interested in reading and especially writing. In middle school, I wanted to be a writer and I even joined a writing club. But, it didn't take me long to realize a very important truth: most people are far too busy with their own lives to care about the writings and thoughts of others (unless the writer is famous, perceived as extraordinarily talented, or simply lucky). If this "truth" were actually true, then why do blogs matter? Why do so many people seem to care about blogging? Why bother?
It did not take very long for me to discover that such a truth still did hold true. A quick perusal of almost any general message board or forum will reveal literally dozens of people begging others to read their blogs. The allure of blogs seemed to largely lie in making them and, for some, trying very hard to get others to read them. However, there does exist a significant handful of famous, talented, and lucky people whose blogs are eagerly read by thousands of people all over the world every single day. Based on these observations, it seems that this is why others care so much about blogs: they're a quick, simple means of self-expression and if you make one, there's a tiny chance that others just might read it.
When I asked him, there was a hint of amusement on his face in response to my ignorance. It seemed as everyone but me knew what blogs were. Fortunately, Josh enlightened me: "A blog is something people make online where people write about their lives and other stuff like politics."
But, that just didn't seem correct. I have always been interested in reading and especially writing. In middle school, I wanted to be a writer and I even joined a writing club. But, it didn't take me long to realize a very important truth: most people are far too busy with their own lives to care about the writings and thoughts of others (unless the writer is famous, perceived as extraordinarily talented, or simply lucky). If this "truth" were actually true, then why do blogs matter? Why do so many people seem to care about blogging? Why bother?
It did not take very long for me to discover that such a truth still did hold true. A quick perusal of almost any general message board or forum will reveal literally dozens of people begging others to read their blogs. The allure of blogs seemed to largely lie in making them and, for some, trying very hard to get others to read them. However, there does exist a significant handful of famous, talented, and lucky people whose blogs are eagerly read by thousands of people all over the world every single day. Based on these observations, it seems that this is why others care so much about blogs: they're a quick, simple means of self-expression and if you make one, there's a tiny chance that others just might read it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
