Showing posts with label media habits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media habits. Show all posts
Sunday, January 18, 2015
What is Media Literacy, Anyway?
Explaining my Masters Program has never been easy. Most people have never heard of Media Literacy Education, and very few can imagine what sort of a career I can make of it. I admit I am still sorting out the career aspect. Most of my cohort are school teachers who get an extra teaching credential and a pay raise for completing this program. There are not a lot of non-entrepreneurial options for me besides pursuing a PhD, and that is not an imminent possibility. I am perpetually exploring my options for part-time work, since raising 4 young children and running a household keeps me plenty busy. I know I'm in a position of tremendous privilege; to be able to pursue a degree that does not necessarily increase my employment options or job security, but rather to study things that I care deeply about and then work to find a way to implement them into my career track.
According to the National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE), the vision of Media Literacy is to "help individuals of all ages develop the habits of inquiry and skills of expression that they need to be critical thinkers, effective communicators and active citizens in today’s world. They have broken that vision down into 6 key principles (with a number of sub-principles) in a document I've spent way too much time with: the Core Principles of Media Literacy Education. If I can summarize that with any efficacy (below), then I'll have explained what media literacy is. One hang-up that I've developed is that despite NAMLE's claim to be concerned with individuals of all ages, they spend nearly all of their resources targeting public K-12 education. I'm of the opinion that informed and engaged parents and teachers ought hopefully to be helping one another in an attempt to prepare children to engage with the world in constructive ways. I would like to see NAMLE engage with parents as a doubly-valuable target demographic. Media literate parents are more likely to raise media-literate children. This is part of my motivation for studying parents (mothers, in particular) in my masters' thesis.
The first principle of media literacy is that it requires an active inquiry and critical thinking about the messages we receive and create. Similar to how print literacy involves asking questions about authorship and intent, and arriving at thoughtful conclusions about how one chooses to engage with the text and its ideology. Critical thinking does not mean being cynical or unkind, but involves discernment, and asking lots of questions about where a piece of media is coming from and why it was created. Critical thinking is best taught by example, and is a difficult habit to teach to individuals who are more set in their ways and defensive about their media habits.
The second principle of media literacy is that it expands the concept of literacy to include all forms of media, rather than reading and writing (print) only. The easiest way I've found to explain what I study is to suggest that we want to take literacy principles usually applied to literature, and apply them to the entire spectrum of mediums and perspectives that individuals are exposed to. In our current culture, individuals are experiencing media texts at a rate that dwarfs their exposure to literature. Equipping people to deal with all that information responsibly and intelligently seems like a pretty prudent move. One of the most integral parts of literacy, is the ability to both analyze and create texts, so teaching the skills needed to experience media creation is a valuable part of media literacy.
The third principle of media literacy is that it should build and reinforce skills in learners, and that the process of doing so requires integrated, interactive, and repeated practice. This is primarily a pedagogical strategy, but if you dig into the full length document, it points out that neither protectionism (telling students to avoid "bad" media") nor a media-effects approach (protecting people from the effects of media exposure) constitute teaching literacy. Literacy involves developing skills that help an individual "make informed decisions about time spent using media."
The fourth principle of media literacy is that it develops informed, reflective, and engaged participants essential for a democratic society. Here, NAMLE expresses a concern about recognizing issues of representation and access that affect certain demographics' ability to fully participate in their societies. As we see an increasing percentage of political and civic engagement occurring online, it's important to teach individuals how to participate in meaningful, respectful, thoughtful ways.
The fifth principle of media literacy is that it recognizes media as a part of culture and as agents of socialization. Hence NAMLE does not take the position that "media are inconsequential, nor that they are (inherently) a problem." The problems that media literacy are likely to recognize are illiterate consumption of media, or illiterate or irresponsible production of media. They see no productivity in lamenting the existence of mediums already adapted by a culture. While NAMLE may not necessarily disagree with Marshall McLuhan's "The Medium is the message" (i.e. that texting as a medium has changed the way we communicate and relate with others with far greater scope than any single text has changed anything), NAMLE does not view mediums as having inherent morality.
The sixth principle of media literacy is that people use their individual skills, beliefs, and experiences to construct their own meanings from media messages. This is essentially an extension of the idea of viewer phenomenology, and acknowledges that each individual has a unique experience with a given media text. Thus we cannot make blanket claims about what a film "means" as though it will mean the same thing to every viewer. Nor can we make easy assumptions about what a text "meant" to its author translating directly into the viewer's interpretation of the text.
That's the gist of it, friends. Or at least the gist of the goals of it. Interspersed were loads of theory and pedagogy and production exercises. But if you want to have a healthier relationship with the media in your life (and especially in the life of your family), I'm a good person to have a conversation with. (Via any of those social media buttons at the top of the right column.) My personal goal is to help entire families have healthier relationships with the media in their lives.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Narrative Assignment: (500) Days of Summer Scene
(The components of my lesson plan can all be found here)
It's kind of difficult to differentiate the importance of recognizing these concepts in a student's experience as a viewer/spectator and the importance of learning about these concepts by attempting to enact them. It feels like there is almost a chicken and egg cycle of primacy there. After having tried to do this, a student is far better equipped to recognize these processes in action in the media they consume, but it is conversely helpful to try to identify the processes in existing works before trying to recreate them. In that sense, it is kind of difficult to nail down the primary learning outcomes for an activity or even a curriculum like this. Whether the purpose is to increase media literacy, or to build skills for media production makes a difference in where focus will be spent, (and the two outcomes are not necessarily contradictory, but a focus on one over the other would change the way a unit was taught).
In an attempt to illustrate the constructed nature of narrative dialogue, my plan is to begin by introducing students to this clip.
Following which, we watch it again, with a shot-analysis to pull us out of our suture, and to help us see how many different camera set-ups are contributing to this scene.
At which point, the students are each given a copy of the script for the scene, and are taught how to bracket a script. After bracketing to suit their own direction, and creating a shot-list, they are (equipment allowing) to shoot the scene in groups of 3-4. If they have access to and knowledge of editing software, they can edit their own scenes together. If not, the teacher could edit together a sequence using shots from each of the groups (showing a purposeful break in continuity).
As an advanced option, the students can intentionally break continuity by inserting something visible into each separate shot (different object for each shot). I would recommend using something larger and more visible than the heart stickers used in my example video. The initial plan was to use different colored ties on Tom, and different hats on Summer, but my intended bucket of props fell victim to a short person who felt that every bucket should be filled with a garden hose. This was our improvised backup. Ideally this process would both illustrate how narrative dialogue scenes are constructive, and help students deconstruct them while watching them, and also heighten their awareness of continuity issues in production, and the planning and attention required to maintain continuity in a completed scene.
It's kind of difficult to differentiate the importance of recognizing these concepts in a student's experience as a viewer/spectator and the importance of learning about these concepts by attempting to enact them. It feels like there is almost a chicken and egg cycle of primacy there. After having tried to do this, a student is far better equipped to recognize these processes in action in the media they consume, but it is conversely helpful to try to identify the processes in existing works before trying to recreate them. In that sense, it is kind of difficult to nail down the primary learning outcomes for an activity or even a curriculum like this. Whether the purpose is to increase media literacy, or to build skills for media production makes a difference in where focus will be spent, (and the two outcomes are not necessarily contradictory, but a focus on one over the other would change the way a unit was taught).
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Media Production Experience: Composition
Snow Falling on Cedars (1999)
There are some aspects of film production knowledge that completely transform the learner's film viewing experience. At the top of my list (based on my experience) are composition (placement of objects and environments in the image, but also including lighting, exposure, and color balance), editing (juxtaposition), and sound editing (especially foley and dialogue editing). After learning about and trying one's hand at these stages of production, there is simply more to see, notice, and look for when viewing a film.
Dog Star Man (1962-64)
I've become increasingly attuned to how much narrative exposition is performed in film via cinematography and framing choices. Almost everything I need to know narratively about how characters, locations, objects and relationships should or will fit into the narrative is explained by the way the camera portrays them.
The Piano (1993)
The Tree Of Life (2011)
A Hard Day's Night (1964)
So, reviewing some basic elements of composition and camera operation, I've been impressed at how a little knowledge (introduced early on) can go a long way in reframing a students' relationship with film and video from that point on. It seems to me a potent element of media literacy, and I'm tucking it into my arsenal as such.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Son of Rambow and tropes of media effects
Garth Jennings’ 2007 film Son of Rambow sets the stage for a spectacular clash of cultures. Will Proudfoot and his sheltered upbringing rigidly proscribed by the Plymouth Brethren, to which his family belongs, are set immediately on a collision course with Lee Carter and his feral lack of supervision. Lee bootlegging the same film that Will’s sect opens the film by protesting creates a drastic and immediate comparison. The Plymouth Brethren’s protectionist insistence that such worldly influences as the cinema will corrupt those who indulge in them is put to the test as Will engages in Lee Carter’s world, and ultimately fails to come to fruition.
There are multiple characters and scenarios throughout the
film that seem to embody classifications of the media effects discipline. Interestingly, although Media Effects leans
toward a protectionist stance regarding media consumption, the film, using the
character arc of Will Proudfoot and the traction of his unlikely relationship
with Lee Carter, seems determined to make a case for a freer and more
optimistic paradigm for media encounters.
The Plymouth Brethren sect is depicted as a somber, tense,
and pessimistic congregation. Their protest in front of the theater where First
Blood is screening is illustrative of concerns that mirror many of the
questions addressed by the Charter Motion Pictures and Youth Study.[1] “What sort of scenes do children see when
they attend theaters? How do the mores
depicted in these scenes compare with those of the community? What effect does
what they witness have upon [children’s] ideals an attitudes? Do they affect
the conduct of children? Are they related to delinquency or crime?” The Plymouth Brethren are clearly concerned
with media having an effect on viewers, and they are deeply suspicious of aberrant,
corrupting influences.
Under such a culture, Will is sheltered from nearly the
entirety of pop culture, and it renders him socially handicap. Only once a series of unlikely events leads
to his viewing of First Blood does he have a common reference point with his
peers. Lasswell[2]
pointed out that the formation of Attention Aggregates relies upon common
symbols of reference, and only once Will Proudfoot becomes acquainted with the
world of Rambo does he have the common symbols of reference to become the
center of the social project that “Son of Rambow” will become.
Likely because it was his first encounter with any such text, Will’s response to it was far less conditioned than that of any of the other children in the film. As a symbol specialist (Lasswell) he is the only child engaging with the text as a manipulator/controller rather than a mere handler. His conception of the concept of Rambo as plastic and manipulatable contrasts with Lee’s conception of First Blood as just another movie – something to consume and discard – and he has consumed enough films that he has “cultivated”[3] a conception of films as a consumable good, and less of a text that he can engage in . His surprise at Will’s pronouncement that he is the “Son of Rambow” shows that he had not thought to engage with or manipulate the text in this way.
If, as Gerbner defines, cultivation is “the independent
contributions television (or media) makes to viewer conceptions of social
reality,” then viewing “First Blood” clearly cultivated some conceptions in
Will’s character. However, viewing of
the film does not itself account for the zeal and ambition that follows. The film seems to counter or complicate this
definition by suggesting that the text could only catalyze beliefs, interests,
and convictions that were already in place in Will’s personality and
imagination. Will’s overactive
imagination and his apathy toward the Plymouth Brethren’s imperatives had
already been clearly illustrated through his whimsical drawings in his
Bible. His wholehearted embracing of the
narrative world of Rambo may have been a surprise, but it was not a shock.
The manner in which Will manipulated the Rambo narrative
speaks to Gerbner’s concept of “resonance.”
Having lost his own father to a brain aneurism, Will created an
opportunity to save a figurative father figure.
Gerbner said that media will resonate with an audience when “everyday
reality and television provide a double dose of messages that resonate and
amplify cultivation.” The lack of a
patriarch in Will’s home is depicted as a point of angst throughout the film,
and for Will to act as a media manipulator involved in creating a narrative
that resonates with his personal life shows an inversion or reversal of
Gerber’s unidirectional parameters of resonance.
Lee Carter also proved an interesting foil to Gerbner’s
“Mean World Syndrome”. Claiming that
exposure to violence in media would “cultivate an image of a relatively mean
and dangerous world in [one’s] conception of reality,” Gerbner proposed that
heavy exposure to the world of television cultivates “exaggerated perceptions
of the number of people involved in violence in any given week.” Lee is certainly introduced in the film as a
character inundated with violent media, and with a marked pessimism about the
people he interacts with and their intentions toward him. However, the film clearly illustrates that a
factor outside of media (in this case his friendship with Will, and their joint
project of creating the “Son of Rambow” movie) have a marked influence on his
outlook, which within the scope of the film seem to have the opposite effect
and in a much more pronounced fashion than Gerbner’s description.
While the film explores the expectation that exposure to a film as violent as “First Blood” could lead to problematic behavior, it definitely depicts both Lee and Will as being enriched by their encounter with that text and with one another. It depicts interpersonal relationships as being a more important factor than media influence in determining the effect of media (not altogether incongruent with Katz and Lazarsfeld’s[4] discussion of small groups and a 2-step process of media effects.) It also depicts Will’s experience with the text as being so full of joy as to be transcendent. This type of engagement is conspicuously absent in the media effects texts we have explored, and Jennings’ film frames this omission as the most important thing about engaging with a film text.
[2] Lasswell,
Harold (1948). Bryson, L., ed. The Structure and Function of
Communication in Society. The Communication of Ideas. New York: Institute
for Religious and Social Studies.
[3] Gerbner,
G. (1998). "Cultivation analysis: An overview".Mass Communication
and Society, 3/4, 175-194.
[4] Katz &
Lazarsfeld (1955). "Personal Influence". New York: Free Press.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
This is not the revolution you think it is. Studio 60 and the structure of domination.
The 2006 pilot of the television series Studio 60 on the
Sunset Strip lays out a bold and promising premise. It purports to be laying the foundation for a
revolutionary show-within-a-show. It
portends to be introducing a dynamic, countercultural piece of media, uniquely
poised to succeed at authenticity where others fail, to hijack the system and
turn it on its head. “This show is
going to be daringly different,” it promises.
Unfortunately, this promissory bravado seems to operate
under the delusion that revolution can occur without any significant change to
the superstructure. The false premise
that we can function under the same systems and get different results underlies
the entire plot. So while the show seems
to promise revolution and resistance, it may be more accurately providing mere
coping. As Garnam pointed out, “It is …
a question of recognizing the systemic constraints within which [people]
construct their forms of cultural coping and how unemancipative these can
be.” He criticized the “tendency of
cultural studies to validate all and every popular culture practice as
resistance – in its desire to avoid being tarred and feathered with an elitist
brush – [as being] profoundly damaging to its political project.”[1]
Studio 60, both as a show and as a show within a show, are
problematically depicted as being emancipatory and resistive, when neither
actually challenge the structure of domination they function under. Rather, because of the character of Jordan
McDeere, the new president of the fictional NBS network, they are simply going
to play the same game over again with a keener instinct for navigating audience
work[2] to
their benefit and a higher tolerance for risk of aspersion. But as Garnam
pointed out “little dent will be made in domination if… nothing is done about
processes of economic development,” and “no empowerment will mean much unless
it is accompanied by a massive shift in control of economic resources.” Studio 60 plays at a façade of empowerment
and anti-domination without so much a second glance at the power structure of
the media industry.
Inasmuch as her character seems constantly to be
holistically strategizing, Jordan McDeere presents an interesting paradox. She seems unusually adept at wielding what
Garnam called “Corporate Power”, “power exercised by economic agents within
these overall structural constraints, but where the ownership or control of
resources provides some room for intentional strategic manouvre.”[3]
Her resources in this case tend to be private information about Matt Albie and
Danny Tripp’s private and professional lives, as well as better forecasting of
the response to Wes Mendell’s live breakdown than her peers. The way the episode is structured, Jordan’s
heightened understanding of the functionality of the “free lunch”, “to whet the
prospective audience member’s appetites and thus (1) attract and keep them
attending the program…; (2) cultivate a mood conducive to favorable reaction to
the advertisers’ explicit and implicit messages” allows her to see potential
controversy and media buzz as a fiscal asset to her company. But it is very clear that she is not
welcoming provocative content as a form of resistance or empowerment, but as an
economically minded strategy to “produce audiences to sell to the
advertisers.”(Smythe)
Her character seems to have grasped that Wes Mendell’s
breakdown will have suggested to media consumers that they have a problem, and
that by altering the content and direction of the show in this way she is
promising a fix to that problem. It’s an
effective response based on Smythe’s description of advertising and audience
work, “Customers do not buy things, they buy tools to solve problems… The nature
of the work done by audience power thus seems to be to the advertising free
lunch combination of sensory stimuli to determine whether (s)he has the
“problem” the advertiser is posing, [and] (2) is aware that there is a class of
commodities which, if purchased and used will “solve” that problem… [and](3)
ought to add brand x of that class of commodities to the mental or physical
shopping list.”
So while Jordan may on some level appear to be
countercultural or revolutionary, she is really just upholding the same
superstructure more effectively and with a better understanding of its
mechanics than her more outwardly dominating, unflatteringly depicted peers. This revolution she is orchestrating is just
a flashy free lunch.
[1]
Garnam, Nicholas. Political Economy and Cultural Studies: Reconciliation or Divorce? March 1993(?)
[2]
Smythe, Dallas Walker. Dependency Road: Communications, Capitalism, Consciousness, and
Canada. “On the Audience Commodity and its Work.” Ablex Publishing Corporation. New Jersey, 1981.
[3]
Garnam, Nicholas. Emancipation, the Media, and Modernity. Arguments about the Media and Social Theory. Oxford University Press. 2000.
Final Paper - Simmel and the Bee in the City
Georg Simmel’s essay, “The Metropolis and Mental Life” was written in 1903, but remains largely relevant today, analyzing the effects of the city environment upon the individual[1]. Exploring Simmel’s findings in a more modern and technologically connected context, in this case an ad campaign for the Bugaboo Bee stroller, reveals that his theory of the modern metropolis and its effect on man’s social consciousness and identity is both enforced by current metropolitan and online environments, and inadequate for them. The often highly intimate nature of social media content does not fit neatly into Simmel’s paradigm. The presence and behavior of children in urban spaces tends not to correspond with Simmel’s descriptions of an inevitable lack of social consciousness. The nature and concept of social capital obfuscates his principle of objective reckoning, and the way corporations capitalize on the individuality and online activity of social media participants blurs the line between objective and subjective behavior and judgment. Ultimately, as the spectrum of stimulations leans toward the intimate, and user-content-saturated realms available in social media, objective reckoning is less likely to be based on tangible features, though more likely to be entrenched in social capital, and social consciousness seems less likely to experience the dearth that Simmel described.
Simmel: The
Metropolis and Mental Life
Simmel’s essay
claims that his inquiry into the meaning of specifically modern or metropolitan
life answers “the question of how the personality accommodates itself in the
adjustments to external forces.”[2]
The essay largely explores the psychological coping of individuals to the high
level of stimulus in urban settings.
Simmel claims that the big city is dominated by fiscal objectivism (as
opposed to individual/emotive centered subjectivism) and that human interactions
in cities become short, impersonal, rational, and instrumental, lacking the
sense of community found in a small town. “The metropolis exacts from man as a
discriminating creature a different amount of consciousness than does rural
life.”[3]
Thus he claims that the inner life of city dwellers is more intellectual than
emotional. People value time and money,
and the easily measured. Thus more
qualitative values are reduced to what can be “reckoned” and this leads to what
Simmel calls the “blasé attitude” of many city dwellers, a defense mechanism
against overstimulation that potentially alienates them from meaningful
interactions through their own indifference and discrimination.
Simmel also
emphasizes that, paradoxically, metropolitan dwellers have an elevated need for
a sense of unique, noticeable, recognized and valued identity. “The carrier of man’s value is no longer the
“general human being” in every individual, but rather man’s qualitative uniqueness
and irreplaceability.”[4]
Their sense of identity will increase in importance to them as the level of
stimulation rises, and that in city environments the need to feel incomparable
or unmistakable will lead to distinct behaviors far less common in more rural
communities.
Navigating the
Bee Campaign
Interestingly,
each of these points made by Simmel are illustrated in the Bugaboo Bee online
ad campaign. Bugaboo is a Dutch mobility
company primarily manufacturing high-end strollers. Founded in 1999, the
company has placed a high priority on their online presence and online
marketing. In January of 2003, 100 years
after Simmel’s essay was published, Bugaboo released the Bee, touted as a
“complete urban stroller.” The company
followed up with the “Bee in the City” campaign platform[5]
which was released in June of 2012 and which allegedly demonstrates the ways in
which the Bee’s design is well suited for navigating cities. But city living is never clearly defined in
any of Bugaboo’s campaign materials, and the implications of what
differentiates a city environment are only inferred. The metropolitan focus and assumptions of
Bugaboo’s Bee campaign mirror and challenge Georg Simmel’s essay.
In
analyzing the content of the Bugaboo Bee campaign, it is helpful to introduce a
further concept, outside of the scope of Simmel’s essay but directly related to
points in it. This is the idea of
“social capital.” The term was
introduced by Alexis de Tocqueville as early as 1890, but was not widely used
until the 1990s. Robert Putnam’s
definition of social capital is “the collective value of all social networks
and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each
other.”[6] Pierre
Bourdieu also wrote extensively about the relation of social capital to upward
mobility through socially recognized class distinctions.
This
idea becomes relevant relative to Simmel’s exploration of intellectualism and
objectivity, as individuals are making decisions and “reckoning” value not only
in terms of money capital, but in terms of social capital as well. It is also
very relevant in exploration of the metropolitan need for incomparable
identity. Choices, objects, and actions
that are perceived to increase the concrete particularity or uniqueness of
one’s identity might be given reckoning weight in terms of social capital. The ability of a product to imply a certain
economic, social, or cultural status becomes in itself a feature of that
product, and an image-conscious consumer is likely to take that feature into
consideration as they valuate potential purchases.
Bugaboo’s
campaign for this “total urban stroller” can be considered in three separate
parts. First is the product website for
the Bugaboo Bee[7]
where the main, traditional, video advertisement can be viewed and product
specifications and features are explorable.
Second is the ancillary website and home base of the social media
campaign “Bee in the City”[8]. This website
has instructions for participating in the social media campaign, allows access
to content created by other users, and primarily houses six 2-3 minute videos,
produced by Bugaboo, exploring individual families using the Bugaboo Bee
stroller in six different large cities around the world. The final part of the campaign is the social media
campaign and its invitation for users to “create their own [searchable]
gallery” of bugaboo bee images and tweets by using the hashtag
#beeinthecity. For users that are
following the company blog[9]
or twitter feed[10]
there are also games and contests with bugaboo strollers and stroller
accessories as prizes.
Analyzing the
Bee Campaign
These
three distinct components of the campaign form a spectrum of material
determined by several factors. At the
product website end of the spectrum the company has complete control of the
content. There are minimal
representations of human beings, and the emphasis is on features of the
stroller. At the social media end of the
spectrum, the company has no direct control over content, and humans, their
personalities, their implied social status, and their faces become a stronger
point of focus than the stroller itself.
The
product Website[11] has as
its foremost and most prevalent feature the 44 second advertisement video[12].
The ad begins by showing the empty Bee stroller rolling out in front of a blank
video screen. Then, in sync with very
electric, percussive music the stroller appears to move in stop-motion, its
movement is relative to stop-motion images played out on the screen of navigating
city sidewalks. The effect is that the
stroller appears to be navigating the city environment, but with the filter of
the screen in place. While there are
clear manifestations of crowds of people, none of them are in focus and very
few of them are fully embodied. We see
most of them from the waist down, presumably the perspective of the
stroller. There are three other
strollers present in the video, all of them the Bugaboo Bee in different
colors. The seemingly self-animated
stroller in quick succession demonstrates all the features unique to the Bee. The video ends with a shot of a paved path in
a wooded area, the first green space shown in this ad. There is also only one
other person, a jogger, within the frame at that point. After this scene is introduced, there is a
jump-cut and the stroller is (suddenly) no longer in front of the screen, but
rather on the screen, rolling toward the horizon.
The extremely fast-paced, stylized editing of the content of this video is very demonstrative of the level of stimulation that Simmel claims will require filtering. “The psychological basis of the metropolitan type of individuality consists in the intensification of nervous stimulation which results from the swift and uninterrupted change of outer and inner stimuli.”[13] It also demonstrates an accommodation of reckoning by removing elements of the personal or human from the scene. There is no human interacting with the stroller in any way, despite the fact that the purpose of a stroller is to facilitate human mobility needs. This streamlining acts as a filter, allowing focus to remain on the product’s features and design, and is present in other static elements of the product website, such as diagrams showing different configurations of the stroller next to simple graphics indicative of the age and size of children that each configuration could service. The decrease in consciousness of the human elements allows an increase in objectivity and reckoning described by Simmel. “[Money] hollows out the core of things: their individuality, their specific value, and their incomparability.”[14]

What this ad does less effectively, perhaps, is to capitalize on social capital or incomparable identity, and that void appears to have led to the creation of the Bee in the City campaign.
The
Bee in the City Profiles[15]
still contain many elements of decreased consciousness and intellectualism, but
by moving the content creation into real spaces with real families, a far more
organic and human effect is achieved. Despite the still-tightly edited and
highly controlled nature of the visual content, a very different aesthetic
experience occurs. There are profiles
from 6 cities: Berlin, Tokyo, New York, Barcelona, Amsterdam, and Los
Angeles. The subjects of these short
films were arguably chosen to be representative of the ideal consumer for this
company. A product as expensive as a
bugaboo stroller (the basic model of the Bugaboo Bee starts at $650), usually
involves selling an idea as well as a product.
When a low-end umbrella stroller can be purchased for under $30, it can
be assumed that someone who spends more than 21 times that amount is buying
more than a stroller, they are buying social capital – and a contribution to
their sense of identity of self. The value of the product then becomes doubly
quantifiable. A consumer can reckon the
value of the product based on it’s tangible features relative to its price, but
also by the social capital of the implied perceived social status of the
product within the public, and the value of that status symbol to the consumer relative
to its price.
Even
the user-content end of the campaign spectrum is devoid of any of the aesthetic
blights inevitably present in real cities.
Consumers appear to be willing to play along with Bugaboo’s
brand-centric filter, creating an idealized picture of city living even in the
content they create. All things
unattractive are filtered or edited out of this virtual existence.
There
appears to be a very curated identity Bugaboo wants associated with this
product. Palpable evidence of a very specific
cool-factor and clear parameters of an elite target audience run throughout the
campaign. The proscribed consumer is very design-conscious, economically
stable, has plentiful discretionary time, is paid or consulted for their unique
sense of taste, is part of a dual-income household, and is comfortable with a
visibly unique self-identity evidenced in dress and grooming. This is distinctively not a product being
marketed toward cookie-cutter soccer moms.
A consumer wishing to distinguish herself may feel that this product
would communicate that she is not one of the crowd, but belongs rather to an
elite class of design-savvy hipsters. The
existence and highlighting of stroller accessories from the brand’s Andy Warhol
collection make this correlation unmistakable.
Bugaboo has
very carefully chosen the subjects for these profiles then, to be in keeping
with the “identity of self” that they want their customers to believe that they
are buying. They are all involved in
design or social media careers (or both).
They all visit museums or art galleries within their short
profiles. They are also solidly selected
from within a niche of art and design centered living. None of them appear to be single parents, or
show any inclination toward making decisions based on economic
restrictions. These are, as curated,
people who are maximizing their urban experience. They are maximizing benefits of city living
(access to culture and design) while seemingly impervious to its challenges
(cost of living or tight quarters). They
also appear to be maximizing benefits and minimizing inconveniences of parenting. There is no indication that they’ve had to
make accommodations in their adult-centric lives by introducing children into
their families.
As
we observe these individuals, there are invariably mixed patterns of the degree
of interpersonal consciousness displayed in the adults. We do not see the
all-inclusive blasé attitude Simmel described, but there are elements of it. Jarno
(profile #5, Amsterdam) actively avoids other pedestrians in one shot, but is
also seen congenially chatting with his shopkeeper friend Nielleke. He appears to be utterly alone with his son
inside the Stedelijk museum, but is then seen chatting with the barista while
ordering a coffee afterward. It is
possible that blasé is too incompatible with the vibrancy of unique identity
the brand is seeking to establish.
The
profiles that include ambulatory children are even more mixed in the
consciousness portrayed. Joy’s family
(profile #6, Los Angeles) actively engages with farmer’s market musicians and a
vendor playing hopscotch. And the baby-wearing that occurs in profile #2 (Nyoro
and Rinko, Tokyo) introduces and heightens interpersonal consciousness, as do
scenes in that profile where children are apparently oblivious to the personal
space of others. Indeed, once children
and their own volition are introduced, it becomes complicated for the films to
keep the focus on the adults’ experience with the stroller, which is really
what they are trying to sell. The
children’s greater engagement with their environments becomes a secondary, more
ephemeral focus of the films and a more difficult, though not altogether
impossible, factor to brand and sell. Likely
for this reason footage of the children is kept to a minimum in each of the
City Profiles.
Simmel’s
description of the metropolitan man simply doesn’t ring true for the
metropolitan baby, “The metropolitan type of man…exists in a thousand individual
variants- develops an organ protecting him against the threatening currents and
discrepancies of his external environment which would uproot him. He reacts with his head instead of his
heart.”[16]
These children are, at best, still developing that protective organ. Their
response to their environment is far more conscious and sensitive than that of
their adult counterparts. Their
unpredictable interactions with their environment are likely why we see so
little of them in these profiles.
(Phoenix, profile 5, appears to do nothing but sleep in his stroller).
It is far more difficult for behavior with such a high level of consciousness
to be converted into a marketable, relatable identity directly corresponding
with the product.
Simmel’s
assumption that the metropolitan man has already developed callousness toward
the quantity of humanity he encounters is oddly silent about just how and when
he becomes that way. It appears that
metropolitan kids, despite having only known the city environment, do not
conform to Simmel’s expectations for urban behavior. Callousness is, then potentially as much an
adult tendency as a city-dweller’s tendency.
There
is a strong theme of incomparability, reminiscent of the paradoxical need
described by Simmel, running throughout these profile videos, as each profiled
parent appears to be firmly in control of their own destiny and the design of
their environment. Based on what is
presented it appears that discretionary time is a limitless resource for these
people, and that they use it to enrich their incomparable, unique, value-laden
lives with culturally rich, rather adult-centric activities. In short, they are the kind of chic that a
consumer might be willing to spend nearly $700 to self-inculcate.
This
imbuing of the product with implied social capital is likely to be an effective
marketing tool when considered relative to an audience fitting Simmel’s
description of a metropolitan man. “Life is composed more and more of these
impersonal contents and offerings which tend to displace the genuine personal
colorations and incomparabilities. This
results in the individual’s summoning the utmost in uniqueness and
particularization, in order to preserve his most personal core. He has to exaggerate this personal element in
order to remain audible even to himself.”[17] Bugaboo
seems to believe Simmel’s claim that urban men (and women) are exceptionally
desperate to define their identity with exaggerated, even exorbitant
elements. The company recognizes a
willingness in its customers to invest in an otherwise rote product if they can
purposefully absorb it into their constructed identity. They cater to this
impulse.
Conclusions
and directions for future analysis
As
selling the consumer on the social capital (or “cool-factor”) of this product
becomes as important as demonstrating its tangible features, the extension of
the Bugaboo Bee advertising campaign into more user-content based social media
seems enormously effectual. The
invitation to consumers to essentially become a part of the brand, and ingrain
it into their own personal branding certainly reinforces the idea that this
product has the power to positively alter the identity of its owner. But the social media platform created by
Bugaboo also creates an augmented sense of control and particularity for those
who use it. Each participant who uses
the hashtag #beeinthecity on either of the larger social media platforms
Twitter or Instagram automatically has created for them their own gallery on
the Bee in the City website.[18]
This empowering invitation to consumers to cultivate and curate an identity for
themselves, tied to this product, is likely to touch a powerful chord with an
urban dweller wrestling with the kind of insecurity Simmel describes.


These
social media platforms, and the potential they create for interacting with a
larger group of prospective peers than the pace of physical city life may
facilitate, also enlarges the sense of identity for users, for “Man does not
end with the limits of his body or the area comprising his immediate activity.
Rather it is the range of the person constituted by the sum of effects
emanating from him temporally and spatially.”[19]
The sum of those effects can certainly seem amplified when they are instantly
shared with a receptive virtual audience.
In fact, participation in such a platform seems to simultaneously intensify
and circumvent different factors of Simmel’s metropolitan inner-life. On the one hand, online social mediums
dramatically increase both the pace and intensity of stimulation available to
users, and very likely affect the level of sensitivity and consciousness in
comparable ways. But conversely, in a
campaign like this there is an increase in the types of affirming, personal
interactions that seem poised to fill the need for “intimate emotional
relations between persons…founded in their individuality.”[20]
The potential to have an increase in human interaction that is
disproportionately steeped in affirmation, like-mindedness, and intimacy
(relative to interpersonal experiences in a public urban area) creates an
environment of stimulation that does not foster a proportionate decrease in
social consciousness.
So
while the Bugaboo Bee campaigns seem to be about facilitating the needs of
families, they are more effectively fulfilling a goal of creating an illusion,
or possibly even a reality of social capital for the adults considering this
purchase. The material in the campaign
is ultimately only nominally about meeting physical, practical needs of the
children using the products, and far more about meeting emotional, social, and
psychological needs of the adults pushing them around. While children are mildly present in most of
the Bee in the City portion of the campaign, they are primarily tropes, and
their wills, interests, or volition are invisible compared to that of their
parents. The adult need for an
incomparable sense of self in urban environments becomes the ultimate driving
force and selling point of the ad campaign.
As
one looks across the spectrum of the entire product campaign, the trend is that
the less direct control the company had over the production of content, the
more the campaign becomes about lifestyle and identity and less about product
features. Once fully immersed in the
social media end of that spectrum, it no longer matters that the Bee is a
“complete urban stroller,” it matters that is a “chic stroller” poised to
positively affect the identity of the consumer. Bugaboo seems to be eager to subversively
embrace the cool-factor while purportedly focusing on more tangible features.
This
same spectrum also demonstrates a marked change in the appearance of
identifiable embodied persons. As the product information website and video
have a notable lack of human bodies, at the social media end of the spectrum,
the twitter feed is bursting with faces and their personalities. It appears that as social media platforms are
used to fulfill the need for establishing unique, unmistakable identity, then
the increase in stimulation available there may not result in a proportional
decrease in consciousness.
Based
on this example, many of Simmel’s observations about urban life still ring
true, but had he been able to observe the hyper-connectedness of the Internet
and social media, he may not have restricted his concern about overstimulation
to the city dweller. His principles of
filtering and reckoning are relevant for any person attempting to discriminate
and filter the quantity of content available online, regardless of location. The
intensely social and personal nature of many social media platforms may also
have given him pause. There seems to be
a gap in his 1903 theory when the content of the stimulation is deeply personal
and entrenched in social capital rather than the impersonality of a money
economy, as is evident in social media in the early 21st
century. Applying Simmel’s own theories
to cover this gap, we find a tension of overstimulation and fiscal reckoning
versus intimacy and unique identity that can be applied beyond the Bugaboo Bee
campaign to the evolving world of online social and commercial media.
Works
Cited
Putnam, Robert. (2000), “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and
Revival of American Community” (Simon and Schuster).
Simmel, Georg. (1903, Copyright 1950), “The Metropolis
and Mental Life” (The Free Press, New York) Copyright 1950.
[1] Simmel, Georg. (1903,
Copyright 1950), “The Metropolis and Mental Life” (The Free Press, New York)
Copyright 1950
[13] Simmel, Georg. (1903,
Copyright 1950), “The Metropolis and Mental Life” (The Free Press, New York)
Copyright 1950 (page 410)
[14]
Ibid page 414
[16] Simmel, Georg. (1903,
Copyright 1950), “The Metropolis and Mental Life” (The Free Press, New York)
Copyright 1950 (page 410)
[19] Simmel, Georg. (1903, Copyright
1950), “The Metropolis and Mental Life” (The Free Press, New York) Copyright
1950 (page 419)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)














