In Farquhar's article he talks about the brand gremlins and discusses what it is and how it affects the industry. Brand gremlins are people who are involved with a certain organization that doesn't really help them but instead diverts them on a tangent in regards to their goals. So organizations such as Sears Clothing, Woolworth, Conway are such examples or department organizations that have ran out of business or declared bankruptcy. However there are companies that have survived these brand gremlins such as Best Buy, Macys, Nordstrom, Saks 5th Avenue have all survived or have yet to experience these Brand Gremlins.
Just like in the movie, the Brand Gremlins ruin a company and can take it from a powerful company into a bankrupt one. Every now and then we hear these things happen and find out the person(s) responsible for these mishaps. Perhaps that this is a good thing for our society because with every death of a department, comes out a new one. Also, with new brands come out new Brand Gremlins....a new breed.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
brand longevity
The little things count. Brand longevity is something that businesses and their marketing directors must work hard to maintain. It actually amazes me that brands can be updated and altered so that businesses stick around for years and years. How did Macy’s continue to thrive, while other department stores disappeared? Established companies update their brands and finesse the operations of their business to meet the expectations of their customers. Not only are brands updated, but these companies have also been successful in avoiding “brand gremlins.” Farquhar defines brand gremlins as “those people, processes and other entities that are out of alignment with the organization’s overall brand strategy.” Brands are expected by customers to have a certain level of quality, regardless of the brand type or the age of the brand. Customers expect good service and constant availability. The brand defines its own set of rules for operations and image as well, which are well defined and are used to market the company. Brand gremlins sneak into the everyday operations of the brand and although fixable, begin to eat away at the draw of the brand.
Alabama is for lovers
Place branding, like conventional branding, has its ridiculous moments. Such as the billboard in suburban Atlanta proclaiming "Alabama is for lovers." You don't have to be a yankee to find something a little odd in that statment. When I think of Alabama, I think of racism, the Civil Rights Movement, amazingly unintelligible Southern redneck accents, and so on. I certainly don't think to myself, "Where should I go on my honeymoon? I know!..." In the same way, I certainly don't associate Denmark with "cosiness, straightforward, design, bright, and oasis," (nor do I assume that all Danes make a habit of mixing nouns and adjectives in lists). Even if I did associate Denmark with all those things/descriptors, it wouldn't necessarily make me want to spend the couple thousand or so dollars it would cost to spend a week there as opposed to neutral, mountains, multi-lingual, bankers Switzerland.
Let's ponder crowded, one-child, red, Three Gorges, not-so-communist-anymore China for a second. Beijing will have the Olympics very soon. For the past couple of years the Beijing government has been enforcing a politeness campaign under the auspices of Beijing's Capital Ethics Development Office with the sole purpose of making Chinese citizens more Westernly polite in an attempt to impress all the visitors for the Games. In waging this $2.5 million campaign, the Chinese government is trying to do exactly what Blichfeldt claimed was impossible: to manage place brands by altering the behavior of the inhabitants of that place. While the success of the campaign was/is mixed at best, the very attempt to control people's lives to such an extent is interesting. (Not only did the government want people to alter their public lives - stop crowding busses, spitting, cursing, etc. - but also to tweak their private lives - no burping/farting/chewing-with-your-mouth-open at the table. As a nominally communist state, China can get away with such things, but elsewhere, Blichfeldt was correct in saying "locals are beyond the direct control of marketers" (Blichfeldt 398).
However, to me, the very necessity of (and the author's assumptions and implications inherent in) that statement are frightening. OF COURSE the locals are (should be) beyond the direct (or any) control of marketers. If they were, then the whole world would be DisneyLand, and we would all cease to be people; we would become characters in fuzzy suits, all living for the sole purpose of entertaining our "guests," never escaping that demeaning role until we ourself become "guests," willingly turning from slave to slave-master.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-08-china-manners_x.htm
Let's ponder crowded, one-child, red, Three Gorges, not-so-communist-anymore China for a second. Beijing will have the Olympics very soon. For the past couple of years the Beijing government has been enforcing a politeness campaign under the auspices of Beijing's Capital Ethics Development Office with the sole purpose of making Chinese citizens more Westernly polite in an attempt to impress all the visitors for the Games. In waging this $2.5 million campaign, the Chinese government is trying to do exactly what Blichfeldt claimed was impossible: to manage place brands by altering the behavior of the inhabitants of that place. While the success of the campaign was/is mixed at best, the very attempt to control people's lives to such an extent is interesting. (Not only did the government want people to alter their public lives - stop crowding busses, spitting, cursing, etc. - but also to tweak their private lives - no burping/farting/chewing-with-your-mouth-open at the table. As a nominally communist state, China can get away with such things, but elsewhere, Blichfeldt was correct in saying "locals are beyond the direct control of marketers" (Blichfeldt 398).
However, to me, the very necessity of (and the author's assumptions and implications inherent in) that statement are frightening. OF COURSE the locals are (should be) beyond the direct (or any) control of marketers. If they were, then the whole world would be DisneyLand, and we would all cease to be people; we would become characters in fuzzy suits, all living for the sole purpose of entertaining our "guests," never escaping that demeaning role until we ourself become "guests," willingly turning from slave to slave-master.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-08-china-manners_x.htm
Caution: Private Property
“…reasons law and geography have remained so uninterested in each other. By comparison, if these two fields have remained distant, architectural theory and the law have barely acknowledged each other’s existence.” (Lonsway 348)
Walt Disney was a genius. He has always been associated with animation and making children around the world happier and even bringing out the child in adults, but his business side often remains hidden. I know we have discussed this colossal monster that is the Disney Empire, but once again, I find myself amazed. 50 years ago, he was doing things that only now companies are beginning to do.
He really pushed new ideas that had huge architectural implications. His idea of creating a buffer zone of purchased land around the entertainment center was a great way to avoid “suburban sprawl butting right up against the edge of the entertainment destination. It makes
The entirety that is Disney also does such a fantastic job at implementing Lonsway’s next point. They put up a façade of public while truly they are entirely private. When I read Lonsway’s writings about this issue of Public and Private I thought about the “Privately Owned Public Spaces” Project in NYC. Through this system private companies looking to build on a specific site are able to get around certain building restrictions if they claim to offer a P.O.P.S. For example, if a Day’s
“Extrapolated, this argument suggests that no matter how ‘accurately’ a private venture is symbolized as a public one, its private status is incontrovertible, based ultimately on the private contract of property ownership.” (Lonsway 351) Under this concept, even if something looks public, or as much as it may even perform like an actual public space, it is private when it comes to legalities. So, then I postulate, if someone were in a P.O.P.S. in NYC and was injured, could they then sue the owner of the property for lack of upkeep on equipment? Or as a counterclaim to that argument, could the private company in reverse then sue the individual for trespassing on private property?
Ultimately, I feel like spaces such as these P.O.P.S. or company towns like the one in the Marsh case, even if they appear public, need to have asterisks under the welcome sign that say “This town is privately owned by the Blank corporation and thereby private property.” Yes, it is ridiculous, but in today’s sue-happy society you, as both an individual and a corporation, need to cover your bases. In a society where individuals need a note on a cup of coffee saying “Caution: Contents HOT!” we obviously need new signs saying “Caution: Private Property!”
Disney Diluted
In cases where brand is intimately linked to place, to what degree is it possible for a brand gremlin to undermine the sanctity of a themed landscape? In the case of Disney, there was initially a clear (although likely unintentional) intrusion from outside its walls – the success of Disney led to intense development of the surrounding area, and in turn forced Disney to acquire for itself what land that it otherwise could not control. Purchasing this land for use as a buffer zone makes sense in that it helps to contain fantasy solely within its borders, but was 110km2 really necessary to accomplish this? Although my knowledge on the subject is extremely limited, I would argue that, although the purchase of 110km2 of surrounding land does indeed protect the realm of fantasy from distillation by outside forces, a more problematic scenario presents itself as a distillation in the opposite direction - what happens when surrounding hotels and restaurants begin to “Disneyify” their services; not to the point of total immersion, but to try to assimilate themselves into the realm of fantasy on the most basic level? Ultimately, Disney’s purchase of the surrounding land suggests that a themed environment must be fully immersive and isolated to prove successful; the undermining of Disney’s borders by the extension of a pseudo-Disney environment causes one to question the validity of the “real” staged environment.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Gremlins
While the town of
A Public Affair?
Politics and court precedents always set for me a certain wonder for what will arise as a result of them. I wonder how the founding fathers of America would feel about how the second amendment extends to assault rifles when their goals at the time were simply to make up for the lack of a standing army. In the private rights and free speech debate in such places as malls and Disney, there’s obviously a lot of ambiguity for how laws put in place before electricity was really harnessed end up being interpreted in today’s day and age. Beyond even ideas like Disney policemen giving false impressions or protesting fur in front of Macy’s, I start to consider what implications ‘private domain’ may begin to have with the future of the internet.
The internet is inherently extremely ‘public’. It gives off all of the implications of a something that is public for personal gain (be it marketing or showing off a toy soldier collection) and therefore by the Chickasaw precedent of so many years ago which stated “The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” (326
So when a website gives off all the ‘identity’ signals of something public and is distinguished only by the fact that it is privately owned, can they get mad (as in ‘suing’ mad) when someone posts something insulting to them on their website? What about when someone is in a public forum on privately record company’s website and starts promoting their own show or band? Today, that’s usually called ‘spamming’, and like the ‘flyers in the mall’, one’s immediate reaction might be ‘well no, because that website belongs to that record company’.
But imagine if you will, a world many years from now where nearly everything you ‘need’ can be found with nothing more than the internet. Then, like the mall, that age old argument can be made again that if people are doing everything they need to online and 98% of all musicians start using one website that just starts to hold a sweeping monopoly for them (kind of like Google in the search engine business), then can’t one say that their entire target audience exists on that website and therefore they should be able to advertise to fulfill their ‘free press’, ‘free speech’ rights? Of course this kind of speculative debate could go on for many thousands of words, and is potentially useless until it starts to show itself more as a problem, but there’s some food for thought. Where, in a future internet-dominated world, is it okay to shamelessly advertise for free?
BE SURE TO GO SEE ‘MR. NICE GUY’ BY ALEX COULOMBE. AN ORIGINAL, FULL LENGTH COMEDY ON COMMERCIALISM AND ITS EXCESSES, THIS FRIDAY SATURDAY AND SUNDAY APRIL 18 19 AND 20 IN HERGENHAN AUDITORIUM IN NEWHOUSE III! VISIT http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=24159768352&ref=mf FOR MORE INFORMATION AND PROMOTIONAL VIDEOS, ALL OF WHICH SHOULD BE POSTED BY MONDAY!
Sunday, April 6, 2008
The ART of Social Condensing
Lifestyle centers such as the Easton Town Center are interesting artifacts, in regards to their programmatic layout and location. Programmatically, centers such as these lend themselves to the lifestyle found in areas of high population density and more urban environments. Combining housing and grocery with big name retail and restaurant dinning provides a very stable shopping demographic and the perfect solution to creating the opportunity for customers to revisit the location. What I find interesting is that locations such as these have been successful in the suburban context. The density of the surrounding area has not forced this type of lifestyle on the occupants, such as living complexes in Manhattan or Hong Kong have, but they have served as a social condenser at both the internal residential scale and the outward communal town scale. They have also been beneficial for the town due to the fact that they drastically increase the value of surround property and keep the taxes for the aid of their own community. Lakewood Town Center is a perfect example of the positive effects that can come from development projects such as these and should be used as models for smaller cites of a similar problem.
It is also interesting to consider the point at which retail development can become detrimental to a society. Projects like Lakewood and Easton have proven to work at a fairly large scale, but mega malls such as Destiny seem to take away from the sense of community. Although the tax income of the community may increase with sales, there is appoint where retail of such large scale can hurt the small business.
It is also interesting to consider the point at which retail development can become detrimental to a society. Projects like Lakewood and Easton have proven to work at a fairly large scale, but mega malls such as Destiny seem to take away from the sense of community. Although the tax income of the community may increase with sales, there is appoint where retail of such large scale can hurt the small business.
How much is "value" worth?
It’s seems that value no longer has the same definition. Dictionary.com defines value first as “relative worth, merit, or importance,” the primary example being the value of a college education. Then the second definition is “monetary or material worth, as in commerce or trade.” The point that I’m trying to make is that value is no longer defined in the first example. It is about the cheapest. When Zukin writes about the honest brokers she says that “they place themselves on our side in the endless struggle for value” (Zukin 170) They may be attempting to do so, but true value never actually comes into play. It seems that true value only comes into play when the individual has the time or the money to make the distinction. As I said, people claim to want to know the value of goods but they don’t actually want to know it. They want what is quick, easy, and cheap. Dr. Phil, the popular talk show host, satisfies his audience because he is the quick, easy, and free answer to real therapy. But he’s not an actual doctor. Yes, of course, he is real. But how does his false advertising of therapy benefit the public who views his show. Dr. Phil.
Reality is unimportant to Americans so long as what they get is cheap and easy. When I worked for Best Buy, 90% of the people who came in were looking for the cheapest of whatever they needed. Even when it was a leisure item they typically spent the big bucks on the fancy TV because it has Sony or Pioneer slapped on it. But then, even when you tell them they are only going to get the “store quality” or “full quality” of the product if they buy all the appropriate cables and services, they don’t listen. Does anyone sign up for that? Of course not. They have the name brand they want, and they got it quick and easy and, yes it looks better than that old 20-inch Curtis Mathis, but it is not being used efficiently to it highest potential. Yet, the individual spent a good amount of money on a it and if they had only spent a little bit more, they would have obtained a huge increase in quality.
Zukin claims that the Honest Brokers “represent our deepest longing for value” (Zukin 173) But again, value is too often tossed around.
The problem is that this concept of value only worked when it was new. But when using this honest broker technique, deception crops up because people want to advertise according to this standard of honest brokers but in reality they are simply lying. In the new play, “Mr. Nice Guy” by Alex Coulombe, you find a pre-film commercial at the beginning of the play, and on the bottom of the screen there are little asterisks* citing that these quotes are not actual quotes or all the little catches to what’s being advertised. This may just be a play but it touches on reality.
Because so many companies have used the honest approach while really scamming the public, the consumer no longer has time for being convinced about the value. Now, most people just figure they will get screwed either way so why not go with the cheaper thing, so they don’t regret it as much. They don’t want to be scammed. In current advertising, companies have gone so far that they are calling each other out on this “fine print.” Companies are reading the fine print that the consumer may miss and bringing it to your attention to make their own product seem like the best option while also making their competition seem worse. But again, even those advertiser are hiding truths about their products.
The community mall article by Cohen and Borko is just reinforcing what was just stated. Americans want what is cheap, easy and quick and the lifestyle village provides that. It creates a microcosm of survival. Because the rise of suburbia has forced us into a situation in which you have to drive to Target and then find K-Mart and then go to Blockbuster and then drive all the way back home, Americans are wasting too much time, too much money for gas, and it was not as quick and easy as doing the same thing within walking distance, which is what the lifestyle village provides. Society has gotten so large and so spread out that the only way to deal with this many people is to begin breaking it up into villages. Villages have always existed, but because societies have become so dense in the past 100 years, we now are realizing that happiness lies in us reverting back to the idea of the village, where everything is close, small, convenient. The only problem is that economically we still live in a global market. Also “the narrative control of an individual’s experience is arguably central to commercial success.” (Lonsway 255) So companies don’t want to lose their hold on their consumers. But if we could look inward and have these villages exist as local, self-sufficient entities it would be a step in the right direction.
Reality is unimportant to Americans so long as what they get is cheap and easy. When I worked for Best Buy, 90% of the people who came in were looking for the cheapest of whatever they needed. Even when it was a leisure item they typically spent the big bucks on the fancy TV because it has Sony or Pioneer slapped on it. But then, even when you tell them they are only going to get the “store quality” or “full quality” of the product if they buy all the appropriate cables and services, they don’t listen. Does anyone sign up for that? Of course not. They have the name brand they want, and they got it quick and easy and, yes it looks better than that old 20-inch Curtis Mathis, but it is not being used efficiently to it highest potential. Yet, the individual spent a good amount of money on a it and if they had only spent a little bit more, they would have obtained a huge increase in quality.
Zukin claims that the Honest Brokers “represent our deepest longing for value” (Zukin 173) But again, value is too often tossed around.
The problem is that this concept of value only worked when it was new. But when using this honest broker technique, deception crops up because people want to advertise according to this standard of honest brokers but in reality they are simply lying. In the new play, “Mr. Nice Guy” by Alex Coulombe, you find a pre-film commercial at the beginning of the play, and on the bottom of the screen there are little asterisks* citing that these quotes are not actual quotes or all the little catches to what’s being advertised. This may just be a play but it touches on reality.
Because so many companies have used the honest approach while really scamming the public, the consumer no longer has time for being convinced about the value. Now, most people just figure they will get screwed either way so why not go with the cheaper thing, so they don’t regret it as much. They don’t want to be scammed. In current advertising, companies have gone so far that they are calling each other out on this “fine print.” Companies are reading the fine print that the consumer may miss and bringing it to your attention to make their own product seem like the best option while also making their competition seem worse. But again, even those advertiser are hiding truths about their products.
The community mall article by Cohen and Borko is just reinforcing what was just stated. Americans want what is cheap, easy and quick and the lifestyle village provides that. It creates a microcosm of survival. Because the rise of suburbia has forced us into a situation in which you have to drive to Target and then find K-Mart and then go to Blockbuster and then drive all the way back home, Americans are wasting too much time, too much money for gas, and it was not as quick and easy as doing the same thing within walking distance, which is what the lifestyle village provides. Society has gotten so large and so spread out that the only way to deal with this many people is to begin breaking it up into villages. Villages have always existed, but because societies have become so dense in the past 100 years, we now are realizing that happiness lies in us reverting back to the idea of the village, where everything is close, small, convenient. The only problem is that economically we still live in a global market. Also “the narrative control of an individual’s experience is arguably central to commercial success.” (Lonsway 255) So companies don’t want to lose their hold on their consumers. But if we could look inward and have these villages exist as local, self-sufficient entities it would be a step in the right direction.
I'm getting it because he told me to ...
In Sharon Zurkin's article she goes into depth about consumerism and how it has changed our lifestyle(s). Consumer guides are something that has came up that changes and influences the way we think about certain products. We rely on these people or so called "honest brokers" to tell us about products, items, and basically everything else you can think of. What they think and recommend to us is what we will most likely get next time we need a product. When they say that a Nissan 350Z is best coupe outside under $30K, we will definitely consider the Nissan 350Z because we trust the consumer guides advice. However, one question always comes up when it comes to consumer goods and that is, "How trustworthy are they?"
Recently in the gaming industry there was a scandal about consumer guides and electronic gaming companies. It seemed that gaming companies have paid off these "honest brokers" that write reviews about these games in order to enhance the games image. Game companies that produce games such as "Kane & Lynch:Dead Men" were rumored to have paid off the people who write reviews and coaxed them to write a good review about the game. Doing this would convince the consumer to buy that game next time they are at a Best Buy or a Game Stop. However, the reviews about that certain game didn't match what the consumer's thought about it as the majority of people who own the game basically said it "sucked."
Recently in the gaming industry there was a scandal about consumer guides and electronic gaming companies. It seemed that gaming companies have paid off these "honest brokers" that write reviews about these games in order to enhance the games image. Game companies that produce games such as "Kane & Lynch:Dead Men" were rumored to have paid off the people who write reviews and coaxed them to write a good review about the game. Doing this would convince the consumer to buy that game next time they are at a Best Buy or a Game Stop. However, the reviews about that certain game didn't match what the consumer's thought about it as the majority of people who own the game basically said it "sucked."
Consumer Dependency
In this consumption based society, consumers try and take advantage of every resource available to them. In the grocery stores and shopping malls, consumers are faced with never ending advertisements and endorsements for products that they should be buying instead of others. “Today, we depend on the advice of honest brokers who teach us how to choose the best automobiles, microwave ovens, and take-out pizzas” (Zukin 172). Consumers are influenced more and more by these endorsements by magazines, noted newspapers and various books, that they have completely put aside their own opinions on products for those of complete strangers.
The writers for The New York Times, Car and Driver, PC World and Good Housekeeping have taken over for our parents in pointing us in the right direction on how we should live our lives. They will tell us which products are the cheapest, which are the most effective at doing their job and even which products are the healthiest for us. Even though these honest brokers are speaking to a general audience have no actual idea of what we really do need, they speak to us as if they will always know what’s best for each of us. By creating a dependency on the brokers, we as consumers struggle to purchase something even as insignificant as a book or a bag of pretzels without knowing which brand is above the rest.
The Price for Pretty
Where to start…. If you think for a second it is easy to connect the dots and see the linear evolution from the Paris Arcades to Lifestyle Villages. What isn’t easy is to see where this evolution is heading. In order to see into the future a few critical questions must be asked first. Brian Lonsway addresses them but does not, nor should he have to, answer them. Where does this entertainment invasion stop and/or how much will it sacrifice program. In these designed hospitals, for example, a couple of problems have already arisen: including “problems of separately managing two clienteles” (Lonsway 288), and spending moneys on sand castles versus mental equipment. In other words, “wellness over illness” (Lonsway 295).
As architects, yes it might not be a surprise but should be a concern. And yes designing specifically for the blind, deaf and disable is essential for creating better spaces and yes shaking up the “idea” of a typology is not wrong, but where does it stop. Where does function get sacrificed for form? I think it is important for us architects to recognize this critical line and realize the consequences for crossing it.
On another equally important point of which I mentioned last week in class, is if everything is unique, what is it then unique too? What would it be like if there were ten Guggenheim's on 5th Avenue? Move a little south on 5th Avenue and you could see the result when the Seagram Building’s set back idea is duplicated and placed next to each other.
If I had to sum up my argument if would be that while conventional thinking is not the law, it is important to understand why it is the convention. Making things to look cool and unique might work at first but without substance it has no way of making it last. Wow I sound like my professor…interesting.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
The Most Humble of Hostility, er, Hospitality...
I get really worried when I start to see entertainment forcing its way into places it may not be welcome. In Lonsway's chapter, there is a section that discusses the transformation of hospitals in UEDs, and my immediate reaction to such ideas is visceral and negative. I'm not saying there's not potential in hospitals that focus on 'maintaining health' instead of 'treating illness', and I'm all for positive attitudes, but the examples I've seen just seem far too geared at making money and making the hospital a "destination", which I believe far exceeds its programmatic nature.
"I was the DMV the other day. Long lines at the DMV, but you’ll find that out when you’re old..er...(awkward pause)”
-Peter Griffin
I've been to Dartmouth Hitchcock and as far as that goes, I think its fine. A food court in a hospital is wonderful, especially with the reputations that hospital cafeterias so often have. That being said though, I find it hard to believe Sloane and Sloane's notion that it's becoming a popular hang-out spot for teens, even if it is the only fast food joint in the area. Every time I've been there, despite the 'mall architecture', the atmosphere is nothing like a mall due largely in part to the clientel; The fact that half the people are in wheel chairs or give off the distinct impression of illness is a large departure from the clientel typical malls see. I don't think there's anything wrong with these kind of varying demographics, but the distinction should be made between what the hospital food court 'feels like' and the typical kind.
It's places like Celebration Health that start to frighten me. I’m infinitely curious how a place like that deals with the terminally ill patients, especially when they so transparently are trying to run a business (people may say the same for some typical hospitals as well, but generally when you're in a hospital you know the primary goal is to heal and not to sell). Places like Celebration Health already admit to separating the paying health club enthusiast and the frightened hospital patient awaiting treatment. Is it all about image, or do they really care? Are the truly ill tucked away so no one is depressed by them? Are they told until the very end that they’re on the path to recovery and everything will be fine? Are visiting hours at odd times so that weeping family members won't intersect the pompous aristocrat who just came from a Thai Poultice Massage? As Lonsway says, it really seems to be maintaining the status quo. It's too bad, because I agree that “If all 'guests,' patients and spa members alike, were pampered equally – medically, therapeutically, and architecturally – then, perhaps, we could have a more hospitable hospital.” (290) The trick is how to do it.
"I was the DMV the other day. Long lines at the DMV, but you’ll find that out when you’re old..er...(awkward pause)”
-Peter Griffin
The other is a doctor having trouble telling his patient that he has AIDS, so he thinks a singing Barbershop quartet will soften the blow. The point, I think, is that some issues need to be dealt with seriously and while in many cases humor makes things easier to deal with (politics from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert), turning something like telling you 'you're going to die' into a laughing matter is very thin ice to tread on. Bill Cosby's done stand up for terminally ill kids and I believe it went over very well. After coming to terms with a condition that you can't do anything about, it might make you feel better if your friends wrote you a song about it, I don't know. I believe it's all possible, but requires some pretty in depth exploration and a very specific mindset of what you're setting out to do.
The Space Between
Just as CityWalk attempts to recreate an urban feel without actually subjecting its dwellers to all the related risks of a metropolis, the ‘hidden persuaders’ in the marketing industry deceitfully expose consumers to various marketing schemes. Embedded within this “suburban strip mall…” (Lonsway), CityWalk attempts to advertise, but specifically entertain through its “…thematic cues – its experiential referents – from the city core” (Lonsway) by producing a themed destination outside the city, while at the same time reenacting it. Today, the addition of entertainment to any event or discipline “fills the eyeballs of millions seeking short-term, user-controlled, instantly-gratifying distractions (Wolf, 16, 30-48). It is quite possible that within these distractions, the notion of the anxious buyer is born. Constantly subject to many different forms of advertisement and marketing pressures, as consumers the quality of a purchase or buying experience remains the most influential aspect to shopping. As overwhelmed consumers continue to establish various interactions with advertisement via highly profiled retail venues, a whole new realm of entertainment is established. The appearance of the so-called ‘honest broker’ attempts to thrive off of a default space set between that of a marketer, and that of the consumer. However, in the midst of “earnestly trying to balance the objective qualities of money and materials against the subjective qualities of pleasure and style” (Zukin), ‘honest brokers’ in themselves seek to provide a new level of entertainment. As an extension from the idea of an ‘honest broker’, popular magazines, newspapers, and journals now hold specific sections designated to providing a consumers guide to the trendiest fashions and the best bargains. In the words of Zukin, “… a consumer guide is not just a guide to goods; it is a guide to the longing for clear, precise, and transparent standards in the public sphere” (Zukin). Even those who claim to provide ‘honest’ insight to the current market, seek to provide a level of entertainment by means of establishing a notion of what remains acceptable within the pubic sphere.
The Next Step
The pervasiveness of thematized environments has reached a dangerous level – a level where we no longer seem to notice (or worse, care) upon entering one. Obviously, varying degrees of departure from “the norm” will elicit differing degrees of wonder, bewilderment, or outright rejection, but we must consider whether the appearance of the manipulated narrative experience is due exclusively to the increased “commercial savvy” of the entertainment industry from the 19th to 20th century. Our culture is fast becoming (broad generalization coming) one of commercial expectation – one of themed one-upping which demands an increasingly themed environment for increasingly themed (branded) people (NikeTown, for the athlete). Whether this is for “maintaining wellness,” as in the themed hospital environment, or for a more discreet branding strategy, one thing seems for certain: now that we’ve come this far, we can’t go back. Such a distillation of the essence of the “here and now” is troubling, especially when we are called to design in it…if the process of design is a kind of innovation grounded in the present, then the idea of designing in a specific theme, utilizing specific tactics for specific ends, is a daunting one. My natural reaction is against this trend, but ultimately the role played by the architect on the world’s stage will more than likely be that of a facilitating agent.
truly living...
What else can be said about the Lifestyle Center? Like it or not, It is the new architectural type of our time. We are forced to witness its growth the very moment we visit the construction site around the Carousel Center. That’s right, even Syracuse is getting its own Lifestyle Center, as a means to revive the once thriving city. We can even see its insertion in Armory and Franklin Square. As architecture students, It is in our face and we are forced to uncover its somewhat vague architectural uniqueness. We can either resist it or embrace its innovation. The Andrew Cohen article is one of the first I have read that paints this New Urbanist phenomenon in a semi-positive light. As a means to revitalize an area we must over look the glamour of its billboard style architecture to highlight the benefits of it. If these Lifestyle Centers are planned correctly they can succeed, as Cohen showed us the through various Lifestyle Centers in California and Ohio. If this is the type of architectural intervention people are interested in, why not give it to them. Architecture is ultimately at the mercy of the publics demand. One problem I do see with it is its demographic bias. As Cohen puts it, the success of this new typology is ultimately determined by its location. Thus, we see these “malls” that only cater to a higher end demographic. I feel this is unfortunate and is masking a greater social issue. I feel these centers would benefit by introducing themselves to a diversity of the target public. Then again, maybe the Lifestyle Center is not for everybody, but the consumer should make that decision. I myself couldn’t imagine living above a Banana Republic or Crate and Barrel into my adulthood but there are others that marvel at its chic approach to urban living. If the target demographic is aging baby bloomers, like Cohen states, I find this type of project to be a hard sell. But if these candy-wrapped examples of architecture can tastefully revitalize the urban landscape I feel we all can benefit from it, even architects.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Too Much?
We as human beings are consumers and so our lifestyle. Developers have recognized it, thought about it, and have developed much so that it has become a way to profit from it; the production of the building typology “Lifestyle Village”. I also want to question if consuming is indeed the main drive behind the human psyche that has made these Lifestyle Villages a success. I feel as though that the Lifestyle Village works its appeal in another way. There are people who like the urban-esque feel of the shops and housing combo that you would find in a city, but feel that living in the city is too fast and or too busy of a lifestyle and more noisy and dangerous of a place. Lifestyle Villages eliminate those negatives. Their new type of a recreated, semi-suburban environments allow their inhabitants to have the best of both worlds; the implied urban environment with convenience, variety, safety, and less noise of suburbia, while also being apart of a new trend. Will this become the new way of living in America and will it catch on so well that it could fade the attraction of our idea of suburbia as well as become its replacement? Or, with the development of the “mega mall” and the UED becoming more populous, will people really want to live in that close of a proximity with more shopping other than that of necessity? In our consumer lifestyle, is there a point of where a limit is reached of a feeling of too much consumption?
Monday, March 31, 2008
the secret to success
In The Soul of the Company Store: Nike Town John Sherry depicts Nike Town as an entertainment destination that has grown into a cultural phenomenon. What makes Nike Town a spectacle in and of itself is its picture perfect integration of shopping and entertainment. NTC has successfully brought these two aspects together. The Nike Corporation has profitably branded its image and its Flagship store, in Chicago, has only highlighted itself as an innovator in the retail market. The author talks of branding as an extension of the company’s image. Whether its Nike, Harley Davidson, or Jeep these companies are popular today because they have loyal customers who support their products and buy into them because they are such status symbols within out society. Nike Town has shown us that branding as an advertising strategy is a profitable tool when it is use correctly. Nike can easily attribute its success to the quality of its products and to its successful advertising strategy. This marketing tool has added to the positive image of the brand and is why people are buying into it. Through innovative advertisement, Nike has branded an image that people want to be associated with. The integration of its products into a museum-like atmosphere is one example of how Nike has branded its image as a forward thinking company. Nike Town has pushed the limits of conventional retail architecture. In doing so they have attained the hard to capture cool factor. At the time of it’s opening, the architectural typology of Nike Town was so unusual for a retail giant. Yet, it is why it has become a successful typology among retailers today. Nike Town has made shopping fun! But it is not simply about selling their products it is more about selling their image. Like the author said himself, when looking at a Nike product in a traditional department store he will forever associate that product with the experience he had at Nike Town. The product he purchased is not what left him with a lasting impression of the brand, it was the experience associated with the product that made him a fan of the brand. Companies are reapplying some of Nike’s techniques and making it their own. Apple is one such company. Apple has recognized that image is ultimately everything and chasing cool is what attributes your success. Apples 5th avenue store in NYC is another example of this phenomenon. Because of visionaries like Nike, retailers are seeking the cool factor through the architecture of their stores. This not only benefits the retailer but is a bonus for the consumer as well.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Where am I?!?!?!
Brandscapes and Brandfests essentially convey the same idea when it comes to the consumer. That idea is the image (or branding) a company produces and how it goes back into the consumer. Both are also extremely influential sorts of advertisements to people of all ages. Younger people might be attracted to some sort of brand because the commercials and other forms of advertisements appeal to their generation. Wherever we go, there is brandscapes, brandfest and etc. and it becomes part of our social norm. This is what brand are out to accomplish, and that is to create a direct and indirect relationship between the brand, item, and most importantly, the consumer.
The reading by Sherry also talked about Niketown in Chicago and this bought back memories on my first visit to Niketown in New York City. The Niketown in NYC has two different functions, and that is selling items and to display various things such as memorabilia from other famous basketball players like Dr. J or even a imprint of Shaquille O’Neill’s hand. It’s as if the store has a double function. I remember that I almost got confused of where I was when i frist entered the Nikestore because I always ended up asking myself "where am I?" This idea also applies to other stores around NYC that contain this “double function” program (Disney Store and F.A.O Swartz). The images and branding of Nike has been all over us and you can’t get away from it. Nike’s image of sports has been subliminally imprinted into our brain. Whenever I think of sports, no other sports brand comes into mind firs than Nike.
The reading by Sherry also talked about Niketown in Chicago and this bought back memories on my first visit to Niketown in New York City. The Niketown in NYC has two different functions, and that is selling items and to display various things such as memorabilia from other famous basketball players like Dr. J or even a imprint of Shaquille O’Neill’s hand. It’s as if the store has a double function. I remember that I almost got confused of where I was when i frist entered the Nikestore because I always ended up asking myself "where am I?" This idea also applies to other stores around NYC that contain this “double function” program (Disney Store and F.A.O Swartz). The images and branding of Nike has been all over us and you can’t get away from it. Nike’s image of sports has been subliminally imprinted into our brain. Whenever I think of sports, no other sports brand comes into mind firs than Nike.
Making Connections
The reading "Brandfests: Servicescapes for the Cultivation of Brand Equity” was tailored to the experience of the participant. The article was addressing “brandfests,” or events organized by a specific brand for its loyal customers. These events were analyzed for their success in creating environments that were suitable for not only customer enjoyment, but in creating memories that enhance the bond between customer and product. The same can be said for architecture and how every architect is aiming to create an experience in their design that is memorable for the inhabitant. During the design process the architect is trying to visualize how someone would feel existing in their designed space, how this person would react to one floor pattern versus another. Architecture and branding share a very similar goal; that goal is to provide a memorable experience for the customer. This interaction between consumer and provider is what makes any one person form opinion and enable them to make choice. Why buy one product or enjoy one space more than any other? You prefer one over the other because you had an experience that was not necessarily only memorable, but exciting or informative or unfamiliar. This idea of designing a space that will create an experience for the consumer can be compared to what is going on with DestinyUSA. The project is not only a mall for people to purchase items; it is an experience in sustainable design. Of course the goal of the mall is to make profit, but at the same time they will be educating the public through a memorable architecture all revolving around the health of our environment. This project will further prove how architecture can be used as an informative resource that has the ability to engage with the inhabitant on more than just a physical level.
Branding a Brand new Brand
I simply must begin by seconded Ian’s comments. “Get people hooked on a product and provide them with exit barriers so that they can never abandon their product, and watch the bottom line get fatter.” (Ian Nicholson) Also, give them the feeling of experiencing risks of all kinds while what is actually happening is simple a façade for something that is safe and entirely under control. “Brandfests" is disgusting yet horribly accurate in most aspects. These readings just seemed like one façade under another. How literal too, as in our constant conversations about big box architecture and designing spaces like those Disney creates; spaces with a stage, backstage, and wings. Well, this staging is absurd.
We begin by discussing the way that a town becomes a brand. I question, if we have gotten to this point, then what isn’t a brand? I understand that a town is advertising itself as a seafood or produce center, but then isn’t every city going to try to brand itself in a similar way. Does the not happen naturally? What’s next, branding a “brand” with a person? After I asked myself that question I found the new Gatorade Tiger “It’s in him. Is it in you?” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WenTKxRxIAk)
It all just seems so fake. Take risks? Are these individuals who attend these brandfests really taking physical risks, in the comfort of their brand new “brand” of Jeep.
It’s never about the brand. It’s about the risk, right? It’s about being a “badass.” It’s about doing something ridiculous and exciting. But after all that “The first principal of perceived risk for the brandfest is that there should be some. The second is that it should not be overwhelming.” (McAlexander 384) So in reality, all these brandfests are about pretending to be taking risks. Ok, so there are also apparent social and financial risks that can happen, but it seems to me that all risks involved are made less risk-like with the help of brand loyalty. The brand is there to reassure. It is there to calm, comfort, and unite! Yet again we find more façades.
McAlexander goes into depth about how certain locations for these brandfests have nothing to do with natural beauty of the place but everything to do with the brand uniting a group of people. To put it plainly, it is rather annoying that a brand must exist to bring people together. But rather than get angry I’ll try to think this through. When making friends, what traits does one look for? Interest in the same music, movies, etc. Essentially one looks for interests in the same products and the same activities.
Is it even possible for us to interact without product involvement? Last week Amelia showed a video of students dancing in a store, trying to have a good time without paying or playing the consumer. And though this act was successful, the store was on the verge of calling security and shutting this all down. So past a few minutes of freedom, is this really free? This is how I feel about branding. You can’t even go see your favorite artist without being slapped in the face by advertising. Just the venue alone exists purely as a means of selling a product while masquerading as a place to bring people together. The
And Ian’s comments about “what social group isn't a granfalloon?” worries me yet again. I often wonder how I can see non-commercialize things still popping up. I often hope for shared identity around something that cannot be bought and sold, because I do agree. When our society is built up on items that can change hands so quickly and easily, why should we expect relationships built on that unsturdy ground to remain strong.
Ultimately, I propose that any individual must be entirely removed from something to not experience the branding of
And just for fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oNedC3j0e4&feature=related
Commercialism backfires when Chevy lets anyone create and post a commercial for the new Tahoe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmyi-aGq6ZE
A Target Commercial that is telling the audience “I don’t know why you say good buy” as if strangely criticizing themselves and saying their products are not a good buy, so why shop there. Oh, I know why, because they have catchy jingles and pretty pictures that are disguising them.
Were did you get THAT from?
As we read these weeks readings, we begin to see and understand how advertising and image are parts to the companies ultimate goal of developing and maintaining a brand. It goes beyond just reaching out to consumers and getting them to buy your product, it is about establishing relationships between the consumer, product and company. Referring back to Paco Underhill’s observations of people shopping and him being about to predicting what kind of deodorant people use is a helpful way for me to understand statements like “the most important message the brandfest can convey about the brand is its fit with owners lifestyles and relevant role identities” (391) and “That a person can develop a relationship with a possession” (388). As much as companies establish specific demographics and target audiences, consumers are identity with certain companies. People like identifying with products. A good example for understanding this is the i-pod. What does it mean to have an i-pod? Why have other company not been able to break apples domination in the music player industry? One reason has to do with the identity having an i-pod give back to the consumer.
There is one caveat, which the reading subtly mentions. For the most part the more exclusive and in demand the more likely it will be able to establish a brand and in turn a consumer identity. Once this appeal is lost and consumer’s identity “unwanted” association (either people or impressions) with the product then it loses its allure.
As a result brandfest, Niketown and Coke factories have all been created in order to maintain this demand and uniqueness. This raises questions of when will the unique become the norm and when this threshold is crossed what will happen?
Missed Opportunities?
This week's readings on brandfests and brandscapes threw into stark contrast for me the utter lack of these experiences I've found myself in. To be frank, the NTC sounds like a excellent tourist attraction and I will almost certainly go there if I find myself in Chicago. The closest I've come to experiencing anything like a brandfest or brandscape actually came to me: a Taylor Guitar traveling road show at my local music store, about five miles away from my house. Like McAlexander and Shouten describe, this was an event that brought together people with a common interest (playing guitar), yet instead of following their guidelines of setting rules like 'you need to own a Taylor guitar to come', they opened the exclusivity to simply people who play guitar. I believe this to be more effective when you're trying to get people to become interested in a company than limiting to people already interested in a company, and it certainly didn't create "dissonance" that I happen to play a Yamaha.
In addition to all sorts of Taylor-brand prizes and discounts, the 'show' was an intricate demonstration of how Taylor guitars are made and tested (presented by the factory workers) and what sets them apart from the competition. As a selling pitch, it worked extremely well, and the opportunity to play $8000 guitars for even a few minutes sure as heck made me want to 'convert' to Taylor guitar playing, and if I had $8000 to spare, I probably would have bought one of those guitars right on the spot (especially since they usually go for $10,500, wow, I'd be saving $2,500!). Even the 'risk factor' was present, as the showmen gave a few mini guitar lessons to those of us playing, hoping to help us improve our technique in mere minutes, and later jamming with everyone. Like McAlexander and Shouten describe, this gave a personal quality to a large company and gave me fond memories that I now associate with whenever I'm in a guitar store or see someone playing a Taylor.
What's the main reason I went in the first place? It was convenient and fit into my schedule. Like UEC's, I wonder if the future of branding might be less 'destination' and more locale oriented, as if the 'show' was more than five miles away, I probably wouldn't have gone. However, like Disneyland, NTC seems to be such a destination that it's pull will probably remain strong for many years to come, but with 'convenience' taking more and more of a hold on everyone, I wonder how long NTC can truly survive...fifty more years?...twenty?......four?
In addition to all sorts of Taylor-brand prizes and discounts, the 'show' was an intricate demonstration of how Taylor guitars are made and tested (presented by the factory workers) and what sets them apart from the competition. As a selling pitch, it worked extremely well, and the opportunity to play $8000 guitars for even a few minutes sure as heck made me want to 'convert' to Taylor guitar playing, and if I had $8000 to spare, I probably would have bought one of those guitars right on the spot (especially since they usually go for $10,500, wow, I'd be saving $2,500!). Even the 'risk factor' was present, as the showmen gave a few mini guitar lessons to those of us playing, hoping to help us improve our technique in mere minutes, and later jamming with everyone. Like McAlexander and Shouten describe, this gave a personal quality to a large company and gave me fond memories that I now associate with whenever I'm in a guitar store or see someone playing a Taylor.
What's the main reason I went in the first place? It was convenient and fit into my schedule. Like UEC's, I wonder if the future of branding might be less 'destination' and more locale oriented, as if the 'show' was more than five miles away, I probably wouldn't have gone. However, like Disneyland, NTC seems to be such a destination that it's pull will probably remain strong for many years to come, but with 'convenience' taking more and more of a hold on everyone, I wonder how long NTC can truly survive...fifty more years?...twenty?......four?
Hello. My name's Jim and this is my wife Debbie. We met on the Honda Highway of Love.
Costumer Loyalty. Get people hooked (psychologically) on a product and provide them with "exit barriers" so that they can never abandon their product, and watch the bottom line get fatter. Like almost everything in our consumer society, I find "brandfests" (apparently, the most successfull "Brand Equity" ploy conceived of to date) to be both pitiable and laudable. They provide a major social event that has the potential to change people's lives, but that event is in the name of addicting that person to a brand, a corporation, and its attendant image, and those friends and discoveries you've made while taking your Jeep off-road are nothing but devices engineered to keep you coming back to your welcoming local Jeep showroom.
But that's the culture in which we live. It makes sense that humans in a consumerist culture would "find themselves" and forge life-long friendships at a fetishistic gathering meant to further entrench their consumerist way of life. Social networks are fuelled by common experiences that bind certain groups together, but when those experiences are hollow, contrived, produced by ulterior motives, then how strong can that social group really become?
Kurt Vonnegut referred to such groups as "granfalloons" in his novel Cat's Cradle. "If you wish to study a granfalloon, just remove the skin of a toy balloon" (Vonnegut). A granfalloon is any proud society or group who's existence is based on a shared identity or purpose that is actually meaningless. Vonnegut cites "the Communist party, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the General Electric Company, the International Order of Odd Fellows - and any nation anytime, anywhere." I would argue that social structures created at Jeep Week, Nike Town, or any commercial piece of our culture would fit into this category.
But then, what social group isn't a granfalloon? In our society EVERY piece of shared identity or purpose has been commercialized and effectively evactuated of any real substance. So where does meaning in our interpersonal relationships come from? I don't have the answer, and (I'm pretty sure) Nike doesn't have it either.
But that's the culture in which we live. It makes sense that humans in a consumerist culture would "find themselves" and forge life-long friendships at a fetishistic gathering meant to further entrench their consumerist way of life. Social networks are fuelled by common experiences that bind certain groups together, but when those experiences are hollow, contrived, produced by ulterior motives, then how strong can that social group really become?
Kurt Vonnegut referred to such groups as "granfalloons" in his novel Cat's Cradle. "If you wish to study a granfalloon, just remove the skin of a toy balloon" (Vonnegut). A granfalloon is any proud society or group who's existence is based on a shared identity or purpose that is actually meaningless. Vonnegut cites "the Communist party, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the General Electric Company, the International Order of Odd Fellows - and any nation anytime, anywhere." I would argue that social structures created at Jeep Week, Nike Town, or any commercial piece of our culture would fit into this category.
But then, what social group isn't a granfalloon? In our society EVERY piece of shared identity or purpose has been commercialized and effectively evactuated of any real substance. So where does meaning in our interpersonal relationships come from? I don't have the answer, and (I'm pretty sure) Nike doesn't have it either.
the nike museum
In John Sherry’s visit of Nike Town Chicago with the two industrial designers, he is introduced to the concept that the NTC is much more than a simple retail store, but that it is a museum in its own respect. The fact that it is of the same caliber tourist attraction as Chicago’s other main sites, the Museum of Science and Industry and the Art Institute, says a great deal about the impact of this Nike store. The store is able to accomplish much more than any other retailer that sells Nike merchandise; it showcases the pieces in a way that would lead an observer to respect the quality and originality of the good.
More than just showcase the Nike Merchandise, the store succeeds in teaching the average consumer as well. To the athlete, the store highlights the newest and most innovative shoes, apparel and equipment that any serious player should have. In addition the store acting as a teacher, the consumers can become the teachers as well. “Look at all these parents showing their kids around; they’re teaching. Just like a museum” (Sherry 111).
These Nike Stores that exist in various cities other than Chicago work to showcase their products around the world. They exist as a series of “museums,” that not only allow people to observer and admire their products, but also to test the items for themselves.
nudging your way into history
When visiting NikeTown in Boston, just a few steps past the door is all it takes to realize, as Sherry points out, that this is not a store, but a museum. It functioned much like a corporate museum would, trying desperately to legitimize its place in Boston’s prized local sports history, with bronze castings of Marathon runners crossing the finish line and Celtics jerseys lining the wall. This tactic of localizing a global enterprise is fairly clear; it facilitates the consumer-company relationship described by Sherry, and indirectly caters to the lofty goals and aspirations of the athlete. To the aspiring athlete, Nike becomes a tangible conduit through which to access success and notoriety, much like an art museum tries (albeit in a much less overt and overbearing way) to inspire by showing the work of the “best of the best.” For me, where the disconnect between store and museum happens is in the interactions between the consumer and NikeTown. On my visit, I was warned several times by vigilant employees that photography was not permitted inside the store. The proscription of photography seems logical when considering a museum atmosphere, where ambiance and the experience of the museumgoer are held as sacred, not to be disturbed by flash photography. In NikeTown, however, prohibiting photography seems to make less sense. The corporate image of Nike is one which would appear to encourage the association of “hype,” traditionally linked with sports events, to the unveiling and exhibition of new products. Photography is a means of fabricating excitement and interest in a subject that otherwise may not exist. This, in conjunction with the eager crowd surging into NikeTown to see the latest in athletic wear, is capable of giving the NikeTown Museum all the publicity it needs.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Breaking Free
Ultimately both brandscapes and brandfests attempt to produce atmospheres which target the modern day consumer; all while attempting to build extraordinary experiences which challenge the social and emotional norm of consumer products. Niketown in
Brandscapes/brandfests are powerful advertisement endeavors proposed to challenge the shopping norm, while at the same time architecturally respond to the contextual landscape in which they reside. While the exterior of NTC is designed to “conceal its internal wonders”, the interior mimics that of the town square, which “stimulates the feeling of strolling outdoors through a small-town shopping district” (Sherry). Niketown in
We "love" you You should LOVE us!!
The concept of creating a relationship between a brand name and the consumer has been a technique of marketers for many years. In recent years, the concept of organizing events surrounded around the experiences and the status of affiliation with a select product has proven affective as a marketing technique. With Mcalexander and Schouten’s analysis of Camp Jeep we can see the theme of entertainment play a dominant role in the advertisment of their brand and product itself. Similar to the idea of the UEC that we have previously studied, the incorporation of a relationship based on an atypical experience (outside the daily routine) can provide an opportunity for loyalty and trust between the consumer and producer. It can also provided an added incentive to return, or in the case of a retail chain, the incentive to spend more time in and around the products. As stated by the authors, “Reicheld and Sasser report that reducing customer defections by 5 percent can boost profits by 85 percent.” Numbers of return such as these can not be overlooked and the successfulness of incorporating entertainment into the sales of a brand name can not be denied. Brandfests do not limit themselves to the specific location in which they are held. They subsequently “leak” into our lives through nearly all forms of media such as television, movies and magazines. These, more normative forms of marketing, have become the primary vehicles for building the elitist status that is associated with many brandfest events. The bragging rights and sense of personal growth that seems to come from the involvement of these events are subconsciously engraved in our minds by constant media attention and the ties that are made with Hollywood excitement.
It Goes Both Ways
Branded environments are becoming more populous. I feel that there are two ways branded environments come about. One, the direction based on the reading, is the brand is established and the environment comes secondary to further support the brand and keep it alive; some brands that have used this direction are Nike, Coca-Cola, MGM and M&M. But the other one that I would like to more explore is the opposite, the direction in which the environment is established and the brand follows, examples being Rainforest Café and Build-A-Bear; I also feel Las Vegas achieves this on a certain level. One could question the effectiveness of direction number two, stating that it is not as successful, but it also has to be realized these notable brand experiences belong to older brands, not the new babies of the environment-brand. It is also good to note that in the environment-brand approach, people will be more likely to make in store purchases, such as in the Rainforest Café and Build-A-Bear because there are no distributors of their products that can offer markdowns or sales, their products are only sold by them. The Rainforest Café, for an example, also mark up their food prices, because they can. Why? The experience, because no where else can you sit in a room with fish tanks, waterfalls, moving animals, vines overhead, while it thunderstorms every fifteen minutes?
Monday, March 24, 2008
Something New and Different
As Americans gained shorter and shorter work weeks with it saw an increase in income, a push towards a lifestyle with increased leisure was able to emerge. The Urban Entertaiment Centers as described by Rubin, Gorman and Lawry in, “Entertainment Returns to Gotham,” were the direct result of innovations, entrepreneurs and an increase in money flow. Consumers have a constant desire to see and experience new and exciting things all the time, which is the reason why the UEC’s continue to evolve today.
As innovation and technology continue to grow, what used to seem impractical in the entertainment community has now become a reality. These entertainment stores not only function as a place to go for shopping but also as an activity. In comparison to the mentioned Niketown, many toy stores now not only function as a store, but also as an amusement park. The ToysR’US in New York City contains its own Ferris wheel.
As these stores continue to grow and evolve they also function in bringing in countless consumers to an area that may have been lacking beforehand. As is the case with DestinyUSA, the mere addition of retail stores would not draw people to the area, but it is the inclusion of the many entertainment venues that will draw people in to see something entirely new and different.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Condensed Architecture
“Part real estate, part entertainment venture, urban entertainment centers are a novel development product that will soon make an appearance in cities across the United States
”means of revitalizing downtown retail and cultural areas and as a strategy for bringing residents of the region into the city for shopping, eating, and recreating.” Rubin 60
Ultimately, what do people want?
It seems that they want everything in a smaller and smaller and closer and closer space.
People want “a blend of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment options that can achieve a higher performance profile than these first-generation festival marketplaces or themed retail projects.” Rubin 62
But what does this mean for architecture? Before this concept of the mall became so popular, architecture was about a series of small interior spaces scattered across a large exterior space. The drive toward Urban Entertainment Center’s and large urban centers in general is what created our current architectural situation in which we now have that same series of small interior spaces but compacted into another, slightly larger, interior space. Space is being condensed. Architecture is condensing.
On page 9 of Wolf’s “”You are now entering the Entertainment Zone” he argues that movies in multiplexes having multiple showings make it more of a destination. I strongly disagree. I was recently speaking to the developers of the Westcott Cinema renovation onWestcott Street Syracuse
My point is that Wolf’s argument for the mega-mall is precisely mine against it. I think the true part of the megamall is more what Rubin, Gorman and Lawry were saying about having multiple amenities in one location. That is the benefit people are seeking by going to UEC’s. It is not quite about novelty anymore, especially when the same chain stores appear in every mall. It is more about the convenience of everything under one roof and I think most places realize that, because they are capitalizing not solely on forgotten novelty items but rather on new novelties surrounded by reassuring stores in one convenient location. Wolf finally gets at the point when he mentions the aspect of the recreation of the small town. People want to revert back to the small town, but now it is on the scale of suburbia.
”means of revitalizing downtown retail and cultural areas and as a strategy for bringing residents of the region into the city for shopping, eating, and recreating.” Rubin 60
Ultimately, what do people want?
It seems that they want everything in a smaller and smaller and closer and closer space.
People want “a blend of retail, food and beverage, and entertainment options that can achieve a higher performance profile than these first-generation festival marketplaces or themed retail projects.” Rubin 62
But what does this mean for architecture? Before this concept of the mall became so popular, architecture was about a series of small interior spaces scattered across a large exterior space. The drive toward Urban Entertainment Center’s and large urban centers in general is what created our current architectural situation in which we now have that same series of small interior spaces but compacted into another, slightly larger, interior space. Space is being condensed. Architecture is condensing.
On page 9 of Wolf’s “”You are now entering the Entertainment Zone” he argues that movies in multiplexes having multiple showings make it more of a destination. I strongly disagree. I was recently speaking to the developers of the Westcott Cinema renovation on
My point is that Wolf’s argument for the mega-mall is precisely mine against it. I think the true part of the megamall is more what Rubin, Gorman and Lawry were saying about having multiple amenities in one location. That is the benefit people are seeking by going to UEC’s. It is not quite about novelty anymore, especially when the same chain stores appear in every mall. It is more about the convenience of everything under one roof and I think most places realize that, because they are capitalizing not solely on forgotten novelty items but rather on new novelties surrounded by reassuring stores in one convenient location. Wolf finally gets at the point when he mentions the aspect of the recreation of the small town. People want to revert back to the small town, but now it is on the scale of suburbia.
UECs
This weeks readings focused on UECs (Urban Entertainment Center) and all three authors go into detail describing them. While reading the articles, it seemed to me that the UECs are basically the ultimate destination center for people and that it is the main attractions center in a certain area. The UECs are places such as the Mall Of America, Destiny USA, South China Mall, and all the mega malls that have 50 million square feet (exaggerating of course) are the types of places which are UECs. They have multiple functions along with retail stores as they include things such as bowling alleys, water parks, roller coasters, and etc. Cities such as Shanghai, Las Vegas, and NYC are UECs in a much bigger context because they contain a variety of entertainment centers such as casinos, clubs, bars, retail stores, restaurants, and all the other stuff that makes people want to come to these cities. Also, the skyscrapers and lights all around also help bring in people as well. People behind the UECs are the architects, developers, and the entertainment retailers, are what makes the UECs successful in its own way.
I don't have a television
“More and more, if you are looking for common ground with family or colleagues, it will be in a shared entertainment experience…” (Wolf 38)
In “The Entertainment Economy” Wolf touches on how this growing portion of our economy has altered our means of relating to each other. One of the reasons people form relationships is through shared interests. Wolf states that “entertainment products put the mass audience on the same wavelength and, while engaging the emotions, they replace the sense of shared community that is disappearing in regular life” (38). It seems that because of everyone’s shared interest in entertainment, that particular economy has been able to infiltrate every part of, at least, the middle class American world. Supposedly, all of us can find common ground through our desire for entertainment.
He talks about the “daily grid,” in which we have slots of time that are dedicated to certain activities. Checking in on news and other entertainment outlets, which now have a price and are definitely commodities, occupies our free time.(note) We enjoy this stuff and are drawn to it, but we also partake in entertainment in order to talk about it with other people.
Sharing entertainment with other people feels rewarding because we are having fun or relaxing with others, but are we also sacrificing something by paying for it? Has our mentality really shifted towards an increased need for entertainment? Perhaps. If so, what have we left behind? Wolf argues that we were more concerned with objects in the 80s and 90s. Entertainment has always been around, but in different forms and at different levels. This interest in entertainment products has only been exaggerated and pushed on by those who provide them and by our own desire for diversions to occupy our free time.
Note: Is there fun without spending money? I knew some kids a few years ago who had a dance party in the Abercrombie store at our very own Carousel Mall. Video:
abercrombie fun without money
In “The Entertainment Economy” Wolf touches on how this growing portion of our economy has altered our means of relating to each other. One of the reasons people form relationships is through shared interests. Wolf states that “entertainment products put the mass audience on the same wavelength and, while engaging the emotions, they replace the sense of shared community that is disappearing in regular life” (38). It seems that because of everyone’s shared interest in entertainment, that particular economy has been able to infiltrate every part of, at least, the middle class American world. Supposedly, all of us can find common ground through our desire for entertainment.
He talks about the “daily grid,” in which we have slots of time that are dedicated to certain activities. Checking in on news and other entertainment outlets, which now have a price and are definitely commodities, occupies our free time.(note) We enjoy this stuff and are drawn to it, but we also partake in entertainment in order to talk about it with other people.
Sharing entertainment with other people feels rewarding because we are having fun or relaxing with others, but are we also sacrificing something by paying for it? Has our mentality really shifted towards an increased need for entertainment? Perhaps. If so, what have we left behind? Wolf argues that we were more concerned with objects in the 80s and 90s. Entertainment has always been around, but in different forms and at different levels. This interest in entertainment products has only been exaggerated and pushed on by those who provide them and by our own desire for diversions to occupy our free time.
Note: Is there fun without spending money? I knew some kids a few years ago who had a dance party in the Abercrombie store at our very own Carousel Mall. Video:
abercrombie fun without money
PICK ME!
Just open your eyes or should I say eyeballs and you’ll see advertisements and logos. From product placement to endorsements, companies are fighting for you; more specifically, for you to remember them. Just as companies fight for the best quality coffee beans or computer chips, they also fight for space in your mind. Companies know there is just so much we as consumer can remember and try to make sure there name, logo, product or slogan is remembered.
If we shift scales to UEC (urban entertainment centers) or even cites (Las Vegas, Orlando, New York) we see the same fight occurring. Where should I plan a vacation makes you think “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” or “Everything is bigger in Texas.” This fight for your memory has resulted into this entertainment bonanza. Everywhere you turn, from a local pizza shop to a UEC wants to become a household name. “Google it,” “Can I have a Kleenex.” Most corporations and destinations have changed or modified their names for this fight. KFC, fedEX, USPS, EPA, NBC, SU, CIA, LA, NYC, ATL…and so on.
The winner of this fight is the consumer. Remember when you had to pay for a email address? Well now you could get one for free with unlimited hard drive space. Wal-mart sells dvds and cds below the price they pay just to get you into the store.
The fight for a good public image has transformed into a fight for your attention and memory and there is no real reason why we should think this fight we be over anytime soon. It does make you wonder how far companies are willing to go and how hard are they going to have to fight?
There is no i in TEAM
The UEC’s discussed in the Gotham article are another great example of the necessity of interdisciplinary cooperation. From what I gathered from the article, the developers and the entertainment companies are the two major players. The developers have the connections on the setup/building side of the equation and the entertainment companies handling the furnishing of the complex. The high level of communication that must take place for a project of this size to be successful is something that every project could learn from. Isn’t it true that the more minds you have working on one task, the more resolved the product will be? Interdisciplinary interaction between major industries, i.e. entertainment and development, is the future of urban renewal. It is true that people are moving out of cities to more suburban areas, but these UEC’s should be successful in bringing a vast majority of people back to the city for their free time. The idea that people will be traveling long distances to these UEC’s ads another level of interdisciplinary communication between the city the UEC inhabits as well as the surrounding cities from with the consumer base will be pulled. A UEC is basically a conglomeration of everything fun for every age group, and interesting enough to hold your attention for 3-5 hours and make you want to come back. How could any of this be possible without a thorough investigation into everything retail by a multitude of cooperating organizations all aiming at a common goal; creating an Urban Entertainment Complex. I feel every discipline can learn from the reoccurrence of interdisciplinary work in retail and architecture.
extreme entertainment
The Urban Entertainment Center (UEC) is yet another parallel to Syracuse’s own Destiny USA. It’s interesting that this radical concept began in the early 90’s. When I visited places like Disney World as a child I was amazed by the surroundings that looked to me, like pages from popular Disney books and movies. Now it is interesting to read about the history of the UEC and the brains behind this forward thinking concept. When the article was written UEC’s were under development in 20 U.S. cities. At this rate it feels like one day every major city will at one level or another have its own Times Square. As a means of urban revitalization the UEC encompasses many aspects of a bustling city. It is advertisement, commercial, retail, and entertainment all in one. Bringing all of these aspects together is a logical and sustainable approach to design but branding these urban centers is a sour idea. What makes places like Time Square successful is it’s branding mix. Who wants to walk through a street corner and see that Nike has transcended the retail world to encompass restaurants, theatres, etc. If that were the case the UEC be reminiscent of a New Urbanist community. What the UEC has done is revolutionized the traditional town center by densifying touristy attractions. This radical concept is now popular culture and may one day be a standard building type in every major city. To highlight its success this typology should implement in all its UEC’s a diverse number of branding companies.
Step into the ZONE
In contemporary society, the name of the game has almost completely become ENTERTAINMENT. The music industry, the sports industry, the film industry, television, and radio have taken over the free time of most American families and have become some of the world largest and influential companies. In a close second place are companies that thrive off of American consumerism and our obsession with shopping. So, it only makes sense to combine their efforts and create Disney World like locations where the occupant can spend money and be entertained at the same time. The goal of all retail chains has always been to keep the customer in the store for the maximum time and to keep them coming back for more. What better way to do this then to combine their favorite pop star, their favorite movie, or their favorite television show with the experience of shopping. In the article “Entertainment Returns to Gotham,” the authors make note of the soon to be established Sportscenter in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, this location is now known as ESPN ZONE and has flourished as an icon of the UEC that Rubin, Gorman, and Lawry have analyzed. The visitor can step into the studio of ESPN and witness, first hand, the filming of Sportscenter while they enjoy a burger or play basketball with their friends on the multiple indoor courts. Similar locations have developed all over the globe and are leading the industry of both consumerism and entertainment.
Sign of the Times
The notion of history is one we generally associate with a linear timeline. But what happens when the worn-out, the defunct, the historical, is reincarnated in altered form? The manufactured authenticity of the festival marketplace raises questions concerning its placement within an existing context, both historically and physically. In either case, it is necessary to assimilate the object into an already existing framework – but does the newly-historical supplant the existing historic, or are both skewed?
It is useful to distinguish between this construction’s place both in context and in situ. The “fetishized authenticity” of the festival marketplace described by Goss might characterize a recreation of a model of the past in which, as described in Barbara Kirshenblatt Gimblett’s Destination Culture, “the object is a part that stands in a contiguous relation to an absent whole that may or may not be recreated.” In this case, the boundaries of the marketplace are called into question, because in essence the entire city and its history could become a backdrop for a single space, and hence be assigned a new meaning. In context, however, the festival marketplace, regardless of form, seems to feed on nostalgia gleaned from a multitude of sighs and “Oh, this brings me back [to way before I was born].”
And although I’m ashamed to admit it, Faneuil Hall is always the first place I go when showing visitors around Boston, and I almost can’t imagine a visit to the city without a trip to, or at least through, the “historical” space. While the marketplace may rely on a “sense of historic public life,” I think it serves a greater purpose in reinvigorating an area left by the historical wayside. History, in my opinion, is not what we remember, but what we choose not to forget.
It is useful to distinguish between this construction’s place both in context and in situ. The “fetishized authenticity” of the festival marketplace described by Goss might characterize a recreation of a model of the past in which, as described in Barbara Kirshenblatt Gimblett’s Destination Culture, “the object is a part that stands in a contiguous relation to an absent whole that may or may not be recreated.” In this case, the boundaries of the marketplace are called into question, because in essence the entire city and its history could become a backdrop for a single space, and hence be assigned a new meaning. In context, however, the festival marketplace, regardless of form, seems to feed on nostalgia gleaned from a multitude of sighs and “Oh, this brings me back [to way before I was born].”
And although I’m ashamed to admit it, Faneuil Hall is always the first place I go when showing visitors around Boston, and I almost can’t imagine a visit to the city without a trip to, or at least through, the “historical” space. While the marketplace may rely on a “sense of historic public life,” I think it serves a greater purpose in reinvigorating an area left by the historical wayside. History, in my opinion, is not what we remember, but what we choose not to forget.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Entertainment in a Box
As large retail venues venture further and further away from relying on anchor stores to provide the stimulus for consumers to shop, festival marketplaces seem to be fueled by something the conventional mall is striving to capture, entertainment. Faneuil Hall in
Throughout the years of technological innovation, both the automobile and steel industries have seen vast increases in production and profit due to the evolution of mass production. A direct comparison can be formed between the assembly line and the mass production of entertainment ventures such as the IMAX RIDEFILM. Originally developed as an amusement park ride/movie, IMAX has since “miniaturized the simulation theater into a 15-seat modular unit that fits into a 30-foot-by30-foot space that is less than 15 feet high” (Rubin). Evidently the entertainment industry has not strayed far from that of its predecessors, and it too has the capability of being mass produced, and used anywhere. The entertainment industry may very well be on its way to driving our ‘new world economy’ in that major retail venues all over the country desperately try to attract a certain amount of guests per day, while keeping them entertained long enough to perhaps buy a thing or two.
the thin defining line...
What really sparked questioning for me this week was the article Entertainment Returns to Gotham. Urban entertainment centers seem to be a rapidly growing trend. According to Rubin, Gorman, and Lawry’s classifications and described characteristics, DestiNY is not a mall, but another urban entertainment center. Which leads me to question where do we draw lines between shopping malls and UECs?
Any promenade lined with shops can indeed be called a mall. But we do not classify Main Street USA at Disneyland a mall do we? From my view, DestiNY is not a mega mall, for I see a shopping mall to be a destination purely driven by shopping in stores, not by side attractions, water parks, night life, and marinas. DestiNY and other ‘mega malls’ like The South China Mall are actually UECs and should not have the label mall attached at all for these places have the draw of shops but are also largely and mainly drawing in consumers by ‘entertainment districts’ and attractions; they are larger than some towns and require interior transport by monorail or boat. DestiNY is so large in area that it even has its own zip code. Now how can places like that be labeled as a ‘mall’?
Any promenade lined with shops can indeed be called a mall. But we do not classify Main Street USA at Disneyland a mall do we? From my view, DestiNY is not a mega mall, for I see a shopping mall to be a destination purely driven by shopping in stores, not by side attractions, water parks, night life, and marinas. DestiNY and other ‘mega malls’ like The South China Mall are actually UECs and should not have the label mall attached at all for these places have the draw of shops but are also largely and mainly drawing in consumers by ‘entertainment districts’ and attractions; they are larger than some towns and require interior transport by monorail or boat. DestiNY is so large in area that it even has its own zip code. Now how can places like that be labeled as a ‘mall’?
The Ethicalization of Entertainmentization
“You don’t bring people half-way around the world to visit a zoo. You bring the zoo to them. San Diego San Diego Zoo, Sea World, San Diego
-Jurassic Park: The Lost World
With all the positive discussion of entertainment and 'fun' becoming the major economic driver of the world, I can't help but wish there was more distinction in what constitutes what one might call 'healthy' fun, as compared to 'degenerative' fun. Either can support a booming economy, but only one can improve the quality of life.
Degenerative fun, I believe, constitutes the majority of the entertainmentization that supports our economy today. This includes events like gambling, strip clubs, television, certain video games, 'leisure' shopping, NASCAR, and perhaps several other sports. I group these together saying that, for the most part, they all occupy time in a manner that not only doesn't improve one's life, but can actually detract from it. All of these have the potential for pretty awful addiction as well, and the results can be devastating. Gambling can bankrupt you, leisure shopping can lead you to rely on material goods for all of your life's satisfaction, television can occupy your time to the point where you're essentially hibernating in your free time, there are video games that desensitize you to truly gruesome violence and make it fun, and NASCAR is just generally wasteful of resources. Given, one can argue that all of these events have a positive social dimension that people are able to bond over and therefore that's positive, but people can bond and be social over just about anything, like um, squirrel slaughter.
On the side of what I would call 'healthy' fun, I would include a number of obvious items like exercise and visiting family for vacations, and some that can potentially overlap with the degenerative ones. Our generation is a visual generation, and there are television shows that are extremely educational, from National Geographic, to PBS Kids Shows (who didn't learn good moral values from Arthur?). I would even argue shows like 'The Daily Show' are healthy, in the respect that they are intelligently written and teach a lot about politics and the inherent problems with the global economy, just through a humorous lense. There are video games coming out these days, such as 'Spore', that are essentially going to be teaching Maya to kids in addition to the evolution of biology from single-celled organisms to entire galaxies. It's another product by Will Wright, maker of The Sims, which just so happened to be a factor for me (and others) deciding I was interested in designing architecture. More and more video games these days teach you wonderful things, from problem-solving to history without even making you think you're learning. Why? Because you're having fun. This is also how I felt visiting The Bodies exhibit while I was in Florida for break. The amount I learned from this visual, two hour excursion into the human body was equal to if not greater than everything I learned from a boring textbook in high school; and I had fun doing it.
This brings up the issue of the UEC, and how much more effective it is to bring fun events to people instead of making them travel. We prefer quicker doses of gratification and leisure, and it fits in our schedule easier. I'm now realizing in retrospect that over the course of doing the four readings for this week (in one session), I took eight different very short breaks, used up by youtube, facebook, guitar, and eating. How strange it is to think that 'eating' becomes thought of as a leisure activity purely because it's not spent doing 'productive' work, but merely fulfilling an instinct. Many of us in Architecture tend to think of sleeping the same way, and we can easily find ourselves feeling guilty for getting eight hours of sleep, thinking about the work that we could've gotten done if we had limited ourself to four. If we're considered a multitasking generation now, I'm frightened to think of the capabilities our children will have. Imagine no internet lag, never having to dial a phone number, never having to cook, everything activated by speech and simple hand gestures absolutely instantly...crazy stuff.
To see the future of computers, see here: http://www.perceptivepixel.com/
-Jurassic Park: The Lost World
With all the positive discussion of entertainment and 'fun' becoming the major economic driver of the world, I can't help but wish there was more distinction in what constitutes what one might call 'healthy' fun, as compared to 'degenerative' fun. Either can support a booming economy, but only one can improve the quality of life.
Degenerative fun, I believe, constitutes the majority of the entertainmentization that supports our economy today. This includes events like gambling, strip clubs, television, certain video games, 'leisure' shopping, NASCAR, and perhaps several other sports. I group these together saying that, for the most part, they all occupy time in a manner that not only doesn't improve one's life, but can actually detract from it. All of these have the potential for pretty awful addiction as well, and the results can be devastating. Gambling can bankrupt you, leisure shopping can lead you to rely on material goods for all of your life's satisfaction, television can occupy your time to the point where you're essentially hibernating in your free time, there are video games that desensitize you to truly gruesome violence and make it fun, and NASCAR is just generally wasteful of resources. Given, one can argue that all of these events have a positive social dimension that people are able to bond over and therefore that's positive, but people can bond and be social over just about anything, like um, squirrel slaughter.
On the side of what I would call 'healthy' fun, I would include a number of obvious items like exercise and visiting family for vacations, and some that can potentially overlap with the degenerative ones. Our generation is a visual generation, and there are television shows that are extremely educational, from National Geographic, to PBS Kids Shows (who didn't learn good moral values from Arthur?). I would even argue shows like 'The Daily Show' are healthy, in the respect that they are intelligently written and teach a lot about politics and the inherent problems with the global economy, just through a humorous lense. There are video games coming out these days, such as 'Spore', that are essentially going to be teaching Maya to kids in addition to the evolution of biology from single-celled organisms to entire galaxies. It's another product by Will Wright, maker of The Sims, which just so happened to be a factor for me (and others) deciding I was interested in designing architecture. More and more video games these days teach you wonderful things, from problem-solving to history without even making you think you're learning. Why? Because you're having fun. This is also how I felt visiting The Bodies exhibit while I was in Florida for break. The amount I learned from this visual, two hour excursion into the human body was equal to if not greater than everything I learned from a boring textbook in high school; and I had fun doing it.
This brings up the issue of the UEC, and how much more effective it is to bring fun events to people instead of making them travel. We prefer quicker doses of gratification and leisure, and it fits in our schedule easier. I'm now realizing in retrospect that over the course of doing the four readings for this week (in one session), I took eight different very short breaks, used up by youtube, facebook, guitar, and eating. How strange it is to think that 'eating' becomes thought of as a leisure activity purely because it's not spent doing 'productive' work, but merely fulfilling an instinct. Many of us in Architecture tend to think of sleeping the same way, and we can easily find ourselves feeling guilty for getting eight hours of sleep, thinking about the work that we could've gotten done if we had limited ourself to four. If we're considered a multitasking generation now, I'm frightened to think of the capabilities our children will have. Imagine no internet lag, never having to dial a phone number, never having to cook, everything activated by speech and simple hand gestures absolutely instantly...crazy stuff.
To see the future of computers, see here: http://www.perceptivepixel.com/
Friday, March 21, 2008
Movies and Missiles
When the entertainment industry is framed as the replacement for endless military spending, it doesn't sound so bad. Indeed, as Michael J. Wolf (any relation to Michael J. Fox?) puts it, "the missile in the silo just sits there gathering dust. You make a movie, on the other hand, and you can potentially release it again and again" (6). To some degree, movies and missiles play the same social role; they are both there to keep us safe. The missile keeps us safe from communists and terrorists while the movie keeps us safe from the boredom created by the very lifestyle that the missile is forcibly defending.
But why is it that entertainment took over when stealth bombers were no longer quite as essential? When we are faced with all this supposed free time, why do we spend it watching TV and movies, surfing the net, and reading news about the latest governor's sexual exploits? We do not create. We don't even destroy. We just sit there. Picture yourself watching a movie with your friends in a nice living room, sitting on nice couches and pillows. No one is talking. Now imagine the TV isn't there. There you all are sitting on a nice couch in a nice room surrounded by people you supposedly like, and all of you (instead of interacting) are sitting perfectly still, staring contentedly at the same point in space (for two hours).
Increasingly, the old saying "All the world's a stage" is becoming far too literal. There are few spaces that can be taken at face value; life consists of manufactured experiences meant to recreate some other point in space and time. Destiny USA's re-creation of Tuscany is a case-in-point. Rather than intervene in downtown Syracuse and enrich its own history and urbanism, Congel decides it is better to implant not only Italian architectural pastiche, but an entire Italian village, potentially at the cost of downtown's revitalization. But at the end of the day, downtown is not entertaining. The only part that is currently successful (Armory Square) is so only because of its concentration of restaurants and bars, places of consumptive entertainment.
Monday, March 17, 2008
___tainment
Hannigan, in “Shopertainment, Eatertainment, Edutainment,” looks at physical sites of consumption, targeting specifically, themed environments. In a sense, he focuses horizontally, looking at the different aspects of these particular spaces of consumption. We can look at these spaces in two related, but different ways: each environment is both different and the same. These themed environments try to be different from other places through an exaggeration of their articulation and by having a particular theme. Themed environments are different from one another and provide an escape from daily life because they are over-designed, so that the designer must infuse each detail with the theme or some kind of meaning. Perhaps they are the ultimate contemporary gesamtkunstwerk. The consumer goes to these places to be entertained by over-stimulation and by participating in a world that’s superficially different from their day-to-day life.
However, themed environments are also anesthetized and controlled. An over-arching concept for these environments involves McDonald’s operational model, which is described by “efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control (81).” Although searching for adventure and change, we are safe in these worlds, which run smoothly as calculated theatrical experiences. They must be safe so as to protect us from danger and to keep us happy. These themed environments (destination shopping malls, themed restaurants, and high-tech museums) aren’t places we go daily as consumers, so we enjoy our time spent there. So, in the end, after our visit, we can remember the ---tainment land as an exciting, entertaining experience, and, if we have the chance, enjoy it all over again, in the exact same way, when we return in the future.
However, themed environments are also anesthetized and controlled. An over-arching concept for these environments involves McDonald’s operational model, which is described by “efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control (81).” Although searching for adventure and change, we are safe in these worlds, which run smoothly as calculated theatrical experiences. They must be safe so as to protect us from danger and to keep us happy. These themed environments (destination shopping malls, themed restaurants, and high-tech museums) aren’t places we go daily as consumers, so we enjoy our time spent there. So, in the end, after our visit, we can remember the ---tainment land as an exciting, entertaining experience, and, if we have the chance, enjoy it all over again, in the exact same way, when we return in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)