Longtime readers may recall my past musings on what I refer to as “unconsumption.” I haven’t written about it lately, but I have thought about it a lot, and particularly recently, for reasons I’ll get to in a few weeks.
I’m going to start writing about it again, sort of to revive it as a theme, and I want to start by defining the term, as I now think of it. Or rather, I hope to work my toward a definition, over a series of posts, and see if anybody has a reaction or a thought or a vicious smackdown in response.
Previously I’ve written about unconsumption as a name for, basically, getting ridding of stuff, as opposed to acquiring it. And I’ve tried to explore whether that process can entail the same pleasures and satisfactions that we commonly associate with consumption (or at least the moment of acquiring something new). Today I want to expand or reframe the definition to include: Finding a new use for something that was about to become “trash.”
A number of artists and crafty types work with discarded or recycled materials — a process sometimes called upcycling. Just today I saw a post on Craftzine about someone who makes scarves out of selvedge scraps. The Crafty Bastards Blog regularly highlights upcycling creators, like this maker of recycled skateboard jewelry, or this person who makes grocery bags out of old T-shirts.
The other day, Andy Bosselman posted about a bunch of interesting T-shirt sites, one of which has an interesting unconsumption/upcylcing variation. (I read about or someone emailed me about this site at around the same time, but I can’t remember where and/or who this on Coudal.com at around the same time.) Anyway the site is called Re-Shirt.
The idea is that people donate T-shirts. In particular, you’re supposed to donate a T-shirt with a story: “a T-shirt that someone associates with a special memory: an important career step, an unforgettable football match, a demonstration in Guatemala, the feeling of an entire stage in their life.”
An image of the T-shirt, along with a short version of its story, is posted on the site, for sale.
I like a couple of things interest me about this. First is the recognition that the importance, and value, of an object has to do with its story, or rather the way its story and the owner’s story overlap. (For a whole book of examples of what that means, see Taking Things Seriously.)
Second is that each shirt chosen for sale on the site “is given its very own orange Re-Shirt Label, a number is printed on it, and it begins a new registered life. Every future owner can now document the experiences they have with their Re-Shirt online and continue the story of this piece of clothing.”
I did a Q&A a little while back here with the folks behind (Re), who do something similar, repurposing red T-shirts with an “Inspi(re)d” logo. I’m sort of fascinated with the general concept of a free-floating logo that gets put onto already-existing objects, sort of a secondary form of branding.
I wonder if there are possibilities for the unconsumption idea in that kind of strategy …
THIS JOKE’S FOR YOU:
A satirical product from a dark comedy crosses over to reality.
It’s interesting to consider the Brawndo project as metasubversion, making it possible to express knowing amusement at the absurdity of American commerce by buying something. But maybe the message is simply that cautionary tales about dumbed-down culture are a futile endeavor: show us an argument that we will buy anything, no matter how idiotic, and we say, “Awesome — how much for that?”
Or maybe the lesson is something else altogether….
Read the column in the March 4, 2008 issue of The New York Times Magazine, or here.
Previously on Murketing: about Brawndo; about imaginary brands. Even more imaginary brand links here.
Consumed archive is here, and FAQ is here. Consumed Facebook page is here.
The Weekend Thingdown is pretty straightforward: It’s a list of interesting … things. I’m not suggestion you need to buy any of these things. They’re just things that caught my eye. The Thingdown is planned as an every-other-weekend feature. Here goes.
Space Invaders Cutting Board, via BoingBoing.
Please continue…
So, looking at the post below, which I slammed out in a matter of seconds as the last thing before shutting off the computer after a long week … I’m not proud.
Reading it now it sounds like I was rooting against Nau. Not the case. Sounded like an interesting and well-intentioned company. I was interested in it. Etc.
Second, it also sounds like I’m being rather more hostile toward cool-stuff blogs than I intended to be. Particularly given the fact that the only thing I linked to that hyped Nau was actually a trad-press article. I don’t have a problem with either cool-stuff blogs or trad-press mags advocating stuff they think is cool or noteworthy or whatever they want to do.
What I should have been clearer about is the difference between those approaches and what I do. Not that one is better than the other, but what I do is write about what people are buying — not about what I wish people were buying, or what I think they should buy. And this was the problem I was having with Nau. It sounded interesting, and the brand was coming up in lots of places, but I was not finding much in the way of actual consumer enthusiasm.
Consider, in contrast, the response to my recent blip here about the Flip camcorder: Several immediate responses from people who have bought it. Not that that’s definitive, but it syncs with the casual conversations I have etc., that people are really buying it and they’re really enthusiastic. I tried to find a pattern like that regarding Nau, but it just wasn’t there, as far as I could tell. It seemed to me that Nau was popular among certain entrepreneurs or marketers or other professional participants in consumer culture — which is interesting and legitimate, but doesn’t add up to something that I can, say, write about in Consumed.
That was the point of the original Nau post on this site, of course. If you read Murketing you know I float stuff all the time just to see what people say, and sometimes I later write about that something in the column. I had put Nau in the “wait and see” file. I guess that was the right call, but I could have expressed that better than I did last night.
For a more thoughtful response to the Nau news, see Indie Breakfast Club.
So.
Earlier I floated a post here about Nau, which was getting an amazing amount of “buzz,” from cool blogs, random people emailing me, and even the “mainstream” press (although less in category three than than in one and two).
I floated the post here because what I wasn’t getting direct evidence of was actual Nau consumers. I totally got the concept, as this article says: “the ultimate over-the-top, high-concept business. It makes striking, enviro-friendly clothing.”
Okay. But my job is to write about why people buy things, so I was trying to figure out: Who is buying this, and why?
On a recent visit to Portland, OR, I went to a Nau retail space, and it was basically me and the employees and the very aggressive marketing concept, and some stuff on clearance. So it was interesting to see, but I didn’t learn anything of use for what I write about. Meanwhile, my post did not get me any replies or comments from Nau fans.
Anyhoo, I bring all this up because it’s just been brought to my attention that Nau is ceasing operations.
Obviously, I’m glad I didn’t decide to write about the brand in Consumed. But that’s not why I bring this up. I bring it up because as far as I could tell, Nau got nonstop love from every “influential,” “tastemaker,” “thoughtleader,” blah blah blah blog you can name.
I thought that was the secret sauce? I thought if you win over the blognescnenti, then you flat-out win? Because the MSM is irrelevant? And stuff? So, what’s up? Could it possibly be that the whole bloggy-buzz thing is, oh, I don’t know … bullshit?
Just asking.
[Thanks Steve!]
Once again: Murketing’s Friday rundown of highlights from this week in backlashes, dissent and critiques….
1. Via Counterfeit Chic I learned of the above piece, actually a T-shirt image (proceeds to charity) by Nadia Plesner. I guess it speaks for itself but just in case here’s a bit of what Plesner says:
My illustration Simple Living is an idea inspired by the medias constant cover of completely meaningless things.
My thought was: Since doing nothing but wearing designerbags and small ugly dogs appearantly is enough to get you on a magazine cover, maybe it is worth a try for people who actually deserves and needs attention.
Well. One can always debate the real impact of such things, and one can also generally make a safe bet that among the reactions will be a trademark objection. That’s the Vuitton/Murakami/Jacobs bag being toted by a Sudanese refugee. And LV has sent Ms. Plesner a letter, which you can download from her site, asking her to stop selling the T-shirts.
Counterfeit Chic breaks down the legal issues with a great overview that I highly recommend.
2. Last week’s AntiFriday highlighted Greenpeace’s backlash against Dove’s dissent-ish advertising. It would appear that Greenpeace’s strategy worked.
3. This week’s top backlash/critique/dissent video comes via Agenda Inc.: A harrowing Amnesty International video regarding “waterboarding.”
The list continues after the jump.
Please continue…
Posted Under:
Anti,
Backlashing by Rob Walker on May 2, 2008
Comments Off on AntiFriday: Luxury, hunger, torture, the revolution, etc.
Design For Dreaming
[ –> Details on Sponsored-Film Virtual Festival are here.]
Design For Dreaming is the final entry in this virtual festival — and probably the best-known one. It’s even been mentioned on BoingBoing.
In part I assume this is because the film is — on one level — perfectly ridiculous, featuring a sort of Audrey Hepburn type who is “Delighted!” to see new cars that are “Oh so beautiful!” or whatever. It’s campy and funny. We all love to look at this sort of thing and snicker at how naïve people used to be. And without question, Design For Dreaming is absurd. But … I think there is more to be found here than that. Please continue…
A kind reader has brought to my attention the “themes” that you can acquire to pimp out, or whatever, your iGoogle home page. I’m not an iGoogle person myself, so I don’t know how new this is, but I was interested to see the sort of pitch to the potential page-pimper as “What happens when great art mixes with the Google homepage?”
I’m going to guess that one thing that happens is that Google gets paid. Because I see that much of the “great art” is by brands, such as Dolce & Gabbana, Ecko, and Bathing Ape. And even most of the artist art is from sort of brand-type artists, such as Jeff Koons. Also Michael Graves is in there, I’m not sure how to count him. And Coldplay, oddly enough.
The other possibility is that these “artists” get paid, or have been paid, by Google. My assumption is that these art pieces are more than anything else analogous to ads for the various entities represented, so the money would flow from them to Google. But maybe I’m wrong. One of the curious things about the cross-branded murketing world, especially online, is sometimes it’s hard to tell who pays whom, and under what theory.
Anyway, if you’re an iGoogler, please enjoy, uh, “personalizing” your experience.
[Thanks Rebecca!]
UPDATE 5/2: For another point of view on all of this, from representative of the super-savvy youth culture Joshspear.com: It’s a “a rad new customizing feature” that lets you “personalize your search toolbar”! What’s the point in making fun of this stuff if the coolhunters come LATER and STILL spout the SAME OLD CLICHES? Here’s something you might consider “personalizing”: your thoughts.
I forgot to mention this just now, and maybe it’s better as a separate post anyway. I was looking at the Amazon page for Buying In, and noticed that in the “Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought” lineup, aside from an assortment of books, there was the Flip Video Ultra Series Camcorder, 60-Minutes (Black).
Presumably this means that one person happened to double up on a book/camcorder order. But it’s still kind of interesting, because I’ve been hearing so much about these camcorders all of a sudden. Seems like everybody’s getting one.
Do you have one? I have a feeling at least one of you does — or has it coming in the mail soon.
What is it about these devices? Why are they taking off? Maybe the answers are obvious, but any good theories?
A very nice mention on Brand New reminds me that it’s been probably, oh, a week or more since I posted about Buying In, and the early reactions to it. So: Please check out Gareth Kay’s take here.
I see the book has also come up on Brian Oberkirch’s Like It Matters, and on the site of The Hundreds (a brand that’s actually in the book). So: Thanks, all.
Also: Someone has tagged it, or whatever the term is, on This Next. So if you’re a This Next-er, you can chime in.
Finally: I mentioned earlier that because I’d noticed the book’s Goodreads listing attract a few “to read” notations, I was going to explore that site. I did, and I ended up joining. Now I’m a Goodreads Author! I like it.
I’ve also heard a little about another site, which I guess is sort of a social network for writers, called Red Room, which I don’t totally get, as well as a newer site called BookRabbit, which I have not explored. If used either, or you’re aware of a particularly good site/service for learning about books online, etc., I’d be curious to hear of it.
Cos I think that this whole Web thing might really take off.
QSR Magazine:
Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett joined Taco Bell President Greg Creed today at the Taco Bell restaurant on 13920 North May Avenue to announce a unique partnership in support of the OKC Million Challenge. Beginning today, Taco Bell’s Fresco Menu, offering 9 items with less than 9 grams of fat, will become the Official Menu of the Mayor’s Challenge.
The Grinder wonders:
Do we really need democratically elected governments signing endorsement deals with internationally franchised restaurant megachains?
The Home Economics Story, Parts One and Two
“What is home economics?” this film from 1951 asks. The answer that is given: It’s partly about mastering “the equipment in a home.” It’s about physics being taught in a way “girls” would like: using kitchen appliances; indeed iIt’s about digging the fact that “Cooking is practically applied chemistry.” And so on.
Here, in other words, we have what looks like a straight-up sexist relic of a past best buried. And of course, that’s what it is — in part.
But first of all, the past is rarely best left buried. By that I don’t mean it should be returned to, but it ought to be known, and known as honestly as possible. These sponsored films may not seem like the ideal place for honesty, but usually, if you look closely, and think about what you’re seeing, things are a little more complicated than they appear. Please continue…
The WSJ’s Wealth Report blog notes the Day&Night watch — “an exceptional timepiece that does not indicate the time!” It costs $300,000. “An avant-garde approach, that is different and even disturbing.” Robert Frank writes:
The company’s chief executive, Yvan Arpa, cited statistical studies to explain how the watch better reflects the time-philosophy of today’s wealthy.
“When you ask people what is the ultimate luxury, 80 percent answer ‘time’. Then when you look at other studies, 67 percent don’t look at their watch to tell what time it is,” he told Reuters.
He added that anyone can buy a watch that tells time — only a truly discerning customer can buy one that doesn’t.
And here’s the best part: The watch sold out within 48 hours of its launch.
Counterfunctionality in watches in particular and other products in general explored in this 10/27/08 07 Consumed, and followed up in a number of Murketing posts and del.icio.us links.
[Thx: Noah!]
You’re a legal expert, right? Good, well maybe you can answer a question for me.
I’ve been very interested to learn recently about things like Muxtape (via Delicious Ghost and Popgadget), Mixwit (via Sleevelessness) and the somewhat similar but more conceptual (and very much worth checking out) “Cassette From My Ex” (via Delicious Ghost).
I’ll just use Muxtape as an example, since I’ve played around with it a little — and I really liked playing around with it. It’s cool. Basically it’s a very easy way to upload MP3s into an online mixtape kind of thing that anybody can listen to. When you actually upload something, it says: “By uploading a song you agree that you have permission to let Muxtape use it.”
Well! That might let Muxtape off the hook. But how do I knew whether I have “permission to let Muxtape” use a particular song?
If you know, please tell me.
[And please understand, my question has nothing to do with any ideological statement one way or the other about the idea of “sharing music” etc. It has to do with not wanting to get sued. Ever.]
And are any of you using Muxtape or Mixwit, either as mix-makers or as listeners? What do you think?
"
. With 
.
.
Kim Fellner's book 
.
A 
