From an interview with writer and Beliefnet founder Steven Waldman:
One of the reasons that Madison, in later years, gave for criticizing George Washington’s speeches was he said, you know, George Washington put too much religion in his speeches. And the problem with that is not that it’s going to turn people against George Washington, it’s that it’s going to turn people against religion. …
And what we are seeing now is polling data that says that one of the effects of the dominance of religious conservatives in the last 20 years is that it’s soured a generation, not on politics, it’s soured them on Christianity.
Posted Under:
Believing by Rob Walker on March 24, 2008
Comments Off on The downside of religous pols … for religion
Yesterday’s NYT Sunday Styles section had a piece about former Consumed subject Uglydolls (February 15, 2004 installment), looking at their popularity among boys. The article notes that the company “recently sold its millionth doll.” How about that!
Camel Train in Mandalay., originally uploaded by Robin Thom.
[Join and contribute to the Murketing Flickr group]
Posted Under:
Flickr Artifacts by Rob Walker on March 21, 2008
Comments Off on Flickr Interlude
No Consumed column this Sunday, and no Journal of Murketing email either. Both return March 30.
Also, if you missed it, the earlier Nike/Mike cease-and-desist post drew an astonishing set of comments, quite interesting to read.
That’s it.
Have a good weekend.
In his recent NYT Magazine cover story examining the Supreme Court’s tilt toward business interests and laissez-faire attitudes, away from interference in the marketplace and regulation, Jeffrey Rosen notes that this tilt echoes an “elite consensus” — but not necessarily a mainstream one.
If anything, America may be entering something of a populist moment. If you combine the groups of Americans in a recent Pew survey who lean toward some strain of economic populism — from disaffected and conservative Democrats to traditional liberals to social and big-government conservatives — at least two-thirds of all voters arguably feel sympathy for government intervention in the economy. Could it be, then, that the court is reflecting an elite consensus while contravening the sentiments of most Americans?
So do we listen to the elites who tell us to trust the marketplace?
Or do we listen to the marketplace telling us that sometimes intervention from on high is a good idea?
I suppose my view would be that while I think Rosen is absolutely correct in saying the elite believes in market-based solutions, he’s on shakier ground in asserting that the broader public doesn’t; as far as I can tell, the crowd’s view on these matters seems to whipsaw depending on the specific issue at hand, in ways that are often inconsistent.
But you know, as long as I’m mentioning this article, I heartily recommend it to those who have heard, or who perpetuate, certain glib assertions that we live in the golden age of consumer empowerment. Sure, it’s neat that the crowd can complain about customer service on blogs, or “collaborate” with multinationals by giving them business ideas or creating branding content for them. But meanwhile, I kinda think the systematic undermining of product-liability laws, for instance, just possibly might have more important implications on the question of consumer power vs. business power.
So highly alert readers may notice that I added a little “share this” sort of button to the Murketing post template. Look down there at the bottom of this post. See it?
I’m not sure about this thing. If people see it as a useful sharing tool, great. On the other hand, I tend to save things via del.icio.us, using a button in my Firefox toolbar, and I don’t (or very rarely) use any of the other multitude of sharing options contained in the button below, so I’m not well-positioned to judge the usefulness of said button.
And what’s really bothering me is how ugly it is.
Anybody have an opinion on this? Keep it or get rid of it? Some better alternative?
I’m definitely open to any and all perspectives.
Update: Well the reactions are in, and the button referred to has been removed, and I feel good about it. Thanks to all who commented….
(Also, did anybody notice that I now sign posts with my actual name, instead of “murketing”?)
I mentioned the Chumby the other day (here’s that post and some thoughtful comments from discerning readers). Forbes has a bit more detail on the “cute” device.
You can choose from more than 400 streaming widgets on the Chumby Web site. Keep track of your friends on MySpace and Facebook, see photos from Flickr, check in on your Ebay bids, read right-wing blogs or left-wing newspapers, watch sports videos or a videoclip of David Letterman’s Top Ten List, listen to podcasts or check out your daily horoscope. If your friend has a Chumby you can become online “chums” and send widgets to each other over the Chumby Network.
Okay.
But the surprising thing is that the $180 price tag on the gizmo is apparently not the core of the business model: “Chumby hopes to make money from ads injected into the stream.”
Hmm. Anyway, the article also names another of other “ambient internet device” enterprises. Here’s the piece.
Still keeping my eye on this one…
Speaking of Starbucks, the company just unveiled a new site to harness the suggestions of its customers and all of that. (If you’d like to make a suggestion, you have register for a “Starbucks.com account.”) It’s not interesting. But what it is interesting are the responses to the stunt on StarbucksGossip.com. For instance, it’s pointed out that:
For a site the “just launched” at the start of the shareholders meeting, it sure is full and has a lot of “votes”. Seems they backfilled it with a lot of comments that have been gathering dust.
And that:
There are already 1,300 pages of comments! And because they’re displayed in order of most votes to fewest votes, people are overwhelmingly likely to vote for those that already have a jillion votes, and therefore show up on the first page; any good ideas that lag a few pages back will get lost in the shuffle.
Indeed, as New York Magazine’s site points out, most of the top-vote-getting ideas are changes that are already underway.
Previously on Murketing.com: Q&A with Starbucksgossip.com proprietor Jim Romenesko.
[Update(s): Romenesko comments to Seattle Times: “My site will continue to thrive because it’s an authentic reflection of how customers and employees feel about the company. MyStarbucksIdea.com, on the other hand, is clearly a corporate propaganda site.” Oof! Meanwhile, a more upbeat assessment here.]
Issue No. 52 of The Believer, which has a film theme, includes a thoughtful Q&A with one of my personal favorite Consumed (May 13, 2007 installment) subjects: Vladimir, maker of works for the Viewmaster which she calls Vladmasters. There’s a short taste of the Q&A online. Also online, but in its entirety, an essay from that issue on road movies by Chuck Klosterman; it’s rather good.
As an aside in a piece about using Facebook etc. as a reporting tool, Ellyn Angelotti writes:
About a month ago, I Facebook-befriended one of my storytelling idols, Ira Glass, the host of This American Life. With my request I wrote a long message sharing how much I appreciate his work and the opportunity to network with him.
I was glowing when he accepted my friendship. It granted me access to his personal page. Then my bubble burst when I saw this:
“I’m not really Ira Glass. I’m the web manager for This American Life. We’ve put this together so that fans on Facebook would have a place to give us feedback. And because we’ve got tons of video stuff to share with you from the This American Life TV show, which debuted on Showtime on March 22, 2007.”
Angelotti adds: “At least they are honest about it.”
And I guess if you can’t really be friends with Ira Glass, maybe it’s nice to hear from his web manager all about his exciting TV show which debuted on Showtime on March 22, 2007. That’s sort of like friendship. Kind of. In a way.
An unusually love-song-ish story in the WSJ today tells us all about Michelle Gass, a Starbucks executive who is apparently a key architect of whatever comeback strategy the massive chain is supposedly pursuing. My favorite detail:
At Starbucks’s Seattle headquarters, Ms. Gass converted a conference space down the hall from [Howard] Schultz’s office into what she dubbed the “transformation room,” where she huddles with other executives to hash out the new plans. Ms. Gass had the room painted red and purple with the hope it would help create an atmosphere of action.
Oooooh! That is so outside the box! That is crazy — a red and purple room, man that is really going to inspire some action. (Ms. Gass explains that she is “not a traditionally trained strategist,” and never even worked at McKinsey or Bain, so that’s how she comes up with those kind of ultra-rad ideas like a red and purple action room.)
Apart from reminding me just how glad I am that I work for myself, what this made me ponder was how a detail like this can be treated at different points in the arc of a company’s story. In this article it’s definitely serving as an indicator of energetic behind the scenes action.
But if the same thing came up after the fact as a reporter was piecing together some kind of aftermath “what went wrong” story about some brand/company that had gone off the rails, I guarantee you this detail would be evidence of how that brand/company had lost its way and taken its eye of the ball. “They painted a room red and purple as a way of inspiring action — too bad they were spending time and money on conference room paint jobs instead of innovating and serving their customers,” etc. etc.
Not that I’m saying Starbucks is off the rails, I have no opinion on that. I’m saying the “meaning” of details like this can be spun a number of ways, depending on the context.
A while back (January 29, 2006) I did a column on a small New York-based brand called Mike, created by Scott Nelson. As I noted at the time, much about Mike’s design referenced Nike. I wrote:
Nelson is not trying to pass off his clothing as Nike goods, in the manner of a Canal Street counterfeiter. Nor is he engaging in some kind of subversive satire, like AdBusters magazine’s famous twisting of Joe Camel into a dying and bedridden Joe Chemo. “I’m strictly paying homage,” he says, adding that he doesn’t expect any trouble. He did talk to a lawyer first and says he believes he has tweaked everything enough to be on the right side of the law, but that’s not the real reason he’s confident. “If anything,” he says, “I’m helping their brands.”
My interest in Mike — or rather Mike 23 Inc. — was precisely this unusual thing – it was a kind of tribute brand, and I’d not seen anything quite like that before.
And for about two years following that column, it seemed that Nelson was correct in not worrying about trouble from Nike, because none was forthcoming.
Recently, however, Nelson got in touch to tell me that this has changed. Nike has sent him a cease and desist. Please continue…
For those you who remember the earlier discussion here of MySpace aesthetics, this bit from the Times is interesting:
The latest school of style-magazine design is called ‘‘the new ugly.’’ The name was coined last fall by Patrick Burgoyne, the editor of the British design magazine Creative Review, to describe the latest issues of Super Super in London and 032c in Berlin.
Super Super sets out to be the print equivalent of MySpace …
More here.
Burgoyne’s “new ugly” observation dates back to last August, so the new ugly may actually be over. Then again, maybe it’s back.
(Thanks for the tip, discoczech…)
Speaking of Buying In, here are some early kind words from Michael Pollan, Jim Collins, Po Bronson, Paco Underhill. Enjoy them here.
Interesting interview with the founders of Method at Grist (via PSFK), makes a point I agree with about getting beyond the “eco” sell:
We’re not the first company to think cleaners should be green, but we are doing them in a way that makes them accessible both from a price-point standpoint and from a design/aesthetic standpoint to everyone else who isn’t this sort of tree-hugging granola — forgive the expression …
One of the big goals with Method, and why design and sustainability are inextricably linked in our brand, is that if you don’t have the design element, you’re only going to appeal to people who are already green, so you’re not actually going to create any real environmental change …
This actually comes up in Buying In, and Method is an example. I would venture to say that most Method buyers are more motivated by the style factor than by the eco factor. And that that’s just fine.
Also I wrote about Method in Consumed, February 29, 2004.
"
. With 
.
.
Kim Fellner's book 
.
A 
