Every now and then something special comes along. However, in the shallows of the digital torrent, every “now” seems to be every five seconds and every “then” was 2 hours ago. Inspiring? Maybe. Numbing? Definitely.
But then, if you’re very lucky, something will cut through the morass. Something so coruscating and brilliant, that every fibre of your being is set alight with tiny twinkling pulses. The digital crusts nestling in the corners of your square eyes are sucked clear and you understand again. You comprehend how creativity is meant to make you feel (italicised here, because it’s easy to forget that this is the point – emotional mimesis; orchestrated compassion; feeling).
I am lucky enough to be able to say that such a revelation has recently occurred for me. I was making a cup of coffee the other day, when I bumped into one of our creatives. We started to chat and very soon I was listening to him rave about a little animation set-up he called “ Tokyo Plastic”. This was my lead.
I logged-on to take a little flick through their web-page (http://www.tokyoplastic.com)and BLOODY HELL!I feel like I need to resort to M&Sisms just to communicate how sodding impressive these guys are. “This is not just a little animation set-up; this is a style-soaking, innovation-drinking, genius-pissing little animation setup.” These guys make movies, short films, graphics and ads. They also design toys, t-shirts and dildos. They’ve worked with Microsoft, Aiwa, Mitsubishi, Guy Ritchie, Dreamworks SKG, AMD and Toyota; and have won the audience award at the Sundance film festival, the Flash Forward 3D category (three years in a row) and a D&AD pencil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDguaz5I98Q).
"Well good for them!" I hear you bleat...
Yes, I agree, all of that stuff is bollocks. Just lists and claims. Just words. So, what you really want to do is click onto the site to have a peep with your own eyes. The work speaks and acts for itself. You’ll be converted much before you have the chance to read even one word.
“Okay, but really does this really justify a blog post? Just paste in the link, god-damn it!”
Well, I get your point. But there is more… I promise.
Tokyo Plastic are a demonstration of something pretty radical. They are a glimpse, a glimmer, of the realisation of an idea that many of the sharpest minds in digital have only until now conceived of hypothetically.
“Oooohhh….big talk from the man at the keyboard!”
Maybe, but bare this in mind: they don’t have a central idea. They don’t have an umbrella thought. They don’t have a brand as we would understand it and build it. They just have lots of separate, brilliant, variously relevant and commercially productive pieces of content. All that sits at the centre is one intensely burning nugget of creativity (its founders- Sam Lanyon Jones and Drew Cope). This is what makes them different. This is what saves them from being buried. This is what makes them operate as a brand and is why they work as company.
“Okay…gulp, I get it, but surely you don’t think this is a model for all brands to follow”
Ho, ho, no! Far from it. I’ll leave that argument for Dylan Williams, thanks very much. But it is interesting to think, that it is a viable business model. Their set-up does work for them. That much cannot be denied. The rest of the inference, I shall have to leave up to you.
"Hey man, have you seen that clip yet? You know the one: that
snippet where a bloke creeps up behind his sister, screams her name,
and then slaps here off her chair? LOL! Or, oh God mate, you’d love this one:
that meme about the little boy who’s close to tears because of the side effects
of his anesthesia? Nearly ROFL’d my waffle!"
Hmm… not such an endearing missive. In fact, both of the
clips mentioned, and their endorsement (3 million and 22 million views respectively), rile a certain amount of moral
rebellion in my gut. This is not to say that neither of them inspired nervous laughter when I first watched them. Nor is it to say that I didn’t lean creepily close to the LCD to watch
the hi-jinks unfold. In fact, I have noticed that, like so many seeking their
entertainment on the net, I have begun to develop a sort of morbid
fascination with this more “extreme” breed of web viral. In fact, it is this category to which this post is dedicated.
This is a trend spotting piece. A tract where, as a
net-based social trend flies bye at a brain frying pace,I whack a socking great flag in its
slitherybelly, just so we can demarcate
it from the rest of the thousand-mile an hour hocus-pocus. After that's done, I will then conclude with a suggestion of how this might affect the business of communications.
The trend I am skewering this week is “morally questionable
comedy”. Not such a snappy title, I know, but it does the job.
Firstly, I must make it absolutely clear that there is a distinct and important difference between this title and the seemingly similar subject of “immorality in
comedy”. This is a truth threefold. Firstly, when one talks of
morality and ethics, the issue of theology rather quickly rears its head, and
from the outset I must confirm that I am, indeed, an atheist. I simply do not have
any biblical references for absolute definitions of my ethics, nor do I have
any sort of missionary axe to grind. Secondly, I am sympathetic with Hume’s
“guillotine”. In the great man’s “Treatise of Human Nature” (1739), he uses the
aforementioned slicer, to severe the world of fact from the world of value (i.e.
what is observed, is just that, and that only). Put simply, I do not believe
that descriptive statements (“is” statements) have any logical connection with
prescriptive statements (“ought” statements). Those oughts (in my opinion) tend
to originate from the observer. Thirdly, (and this is the important bit) I do
not intend to re-write Philosophy’s rule-book, or re-invent its wheels.
Absolutists, consquentialists, deontologists, naturalists, non-cognitivists,
objectivists and subjectivists alike, will all have definite and variously
cogent opinions on the moral scale of this matter, and I do not intend to wade
in and embarrass myself. Although I am prone to them, on this occasion I will
not be indulging myself with a spleen purging pub rant.
This article is about an identification, not an evaluation,
of “morally questionable comedy”. It is
written in recognition of a variety of internet meme that raises eyebrows and
stimulates the sort of discussion most ably marshalled by the tribes mentioned
above, but most fervently pursued by the Daily Mail. This is not to say that
this genre intrinsically holds content that is moral or immoral – just that its
ethics are quite frequently up for debate.
In short, this "meme theme" (or "MT") could be seen to fit snugly
under the umbrella of “black comedy”.All of the trademark attributes, be they
separated or working in conjunction, seem to be present and correct. Indeed, broad
satire, the comically shocking, protracted humiliation and taboo subversion run
through this trend like a carotid artery, pumping life into its fibre. And,
certainly, this supply is profuse and direct; this is an incredibly vigorous
genre.
Beyond this simple description, the MT is
characterised by 2 further ideas: a fascination with the visceral and a progressive
celebration of the extreme. This is what gives the trend its edge. It doesn’t
just represent black humour, it consistently represents it in its superlative
form; incrementally amplified and mutated to be more base, more graphic and
more downright disturbing than the what has gone before. Potent stuff!
For immediate evidence of this progression, just check out the notorious history of the "random" (or "/b/") forum on 4chan.org (not for the fainthearted), or the back-catalogues of failblog and keyboard cat.All 3 (the last 2 being pretty closely related) find energy in the principles outlined above. Indeed, /b/'s content frequently follows this path to its natural conclusion; hosting content which is eventually a concern for the police.
So, I suppose, some attempt should be made to speculate about why there is such
an audience for this stuff; why are people fascinated by videos of teenagers being berated by their folks
for being atheists, or by clips of Japanese men being thrown down ski runs in the nude?
Now this is a huge question, but some educated guesses can be made.
The first knee-jerk reaction is to suggest that humans have
always enjoyed watching others fall down, and that pathos has forever been an excepted
tenet of humour. Indeed the misfortune of others is apparent in almost every
form of comedy ever realised: from ancient Greek satire, right through to the
most saccharine of children’s television.
However, this is a pretty unsatisfactory conclusion, as this trend isn’t just about mocking –
it is also fuelled by an obsession with the excessive and the visceral. With this in mind, 2 possibly
contributing factors might be:
It exists, because it now possible for it to exist... Thanks to the internet and readily available audio-visual
technology (see the Flip for confirmation of this), the production of
entertainment is now firmly in the hands of the people. More of the grittier,
weirder and more shocking bits of life are being documented than ever before.
Modern life is meh! Thinkers, such as the infamous Bakhtin, see the ritual of
carnival as a way for society to subvert norms and so access a more natural form
of experience. We might consider something similar for our MT; where people fore-go mainstream sanitised culture to indulge in documentations that are more visceral and emotionally relevant. Maybe what clips like "David after the dentist" offer is merely a
little life affirmation.
Finally, we might pay some thought to the implications this MT has for the communications industry. It may have become increasingly visible to the mainstream, but does this mean brands should start fooling around with it, trying to appropriate its sense of humour? Possibly not.
To my mind, it would be rare to find a brand that would sit comfortably with grand-scale hyper-realistic humiliation. Moreover, attempts to tone it down would only see its relevance disintegrate (see the Dominoes' Britain's Got Talent spots for evidence).
To this end, we should perhaps view this trend identification in another way. Rather than replicate its superficial traits, perhaps we should further examine this MT's motivations. Indeed, I would moot that instead of watching the TV screens for its infiltration, we should be starting to more conscientiously consider the consumer mindset that is propelling it and where this support will take it next.
In my last post I discussed how it was important to understand the function of Twitter, if we are ever to use it to commercial ends. Accordingly, it now makes sense to do a little exploration to feel out the sorts of ways that this might be done.
The first thing to lie out in front of us is an affirmation that Twitter can, of course, be used to generate money. This should not be doubted; there is opportunity aplenty. However, there are some very important caveats that must not be overlooked.
Not least amongst these is Twitter’s reach. There has, admittedly, been an absolute orgy of media buzz surrounding the site since its inception 3 years ago. The world, his wife, dog and mistress claim to tweet these days (check out the clip below for confirmation of this).
I’ll think you’ll agree that it has all been very impressive. In fact, one might be forgiven for presuming that having a presence on Twitter is analogous to cradling the entirety of the world’s consumers in the palm of your brand’s hand.
However, although you could be forgiven, you wouldn’t be right. Far from it. In reality, Twitter can only be assumed to have around 2 million active users (at the turn of the year, ComScore reported a total of 1.9 million). Now this is fine, numbers are continuing to increase (HitWise recently claimed that Twitter has passed Digg for weekly users) and we have every reason to believe that this rise will continue through the year, but if it is mass coverage you want then look elsewhere. For example, it may not have satisfied intellectual curiosity in the same way, but an advert during the final of last year’s Britain’s Got Talent would have secured the gaze of 9 million more sets out eyeballs.
Next up in our run-down of considerations, is the type of relationship that Twitter provides. As mentioned, the site cannot promise the goliathan reach of the biggest and best TV spots, but what you do get is a very particular sort of interaction. Whilst your audience might not be huge, marshalling the site’s possibilities can procure a deeper and potentially more persuasive connection with the people that you are talking to. This sort of advertising is most definitely only of use to a very specific sort of client; floor detergents, for example, shouldn’t be looking to make in-roads any time soon. However, when all things client, brand and consumer are considered meticulously, this variety of tweet-based discourse can be devastatingly effective. A great case-study for this is the teaser campaign for Peep Show series 6. In the run up to its television launch this summer, the show’s writers Armstrong and Bain, have been weaving some incredible magic on the site. After setting-up and utilising fictitious user profiles, they have been tweeting as their shows’ characters; effectively playing out their lives in real-time. Fans have been aloud the chance to interact with the protagonists and hence enter into the dialogue of drawn-out virtual episodes. Pretty clever stuff, and the perfect thing to whip up expectation and devotion amongst the fan-base.
Another, “watch out” that should be attached to the development of Twitter-hosted relationships, is that the conversation you will hold will not be totally within your control. This is old news for digital enthusiasts but is worth pointing out nonetheless, as some brands have already felt the consequences of ignoring such an old truism. For an example, we need not look any further than the one shown below, where Skittles suffered dearly for streaming a live feed of brand related tweets on its homepage. I urge you just to click into the image and read the comments list – no further explanation is needed, just be aware of the risk involved.
Finally, it is vital that we remember that people are on the site for social reasons and not commercial ones. This seams all too obvious, but it’s worth reiterating that if you communicate in this medium you will need to add to the consumer experience and not leach from it. For evidence that this is actually achievable, we need only to look back to the Peep Show example above. However, this is just one example, and for those of us not re-launching one of the nations best loved comedies, new ingenious plans will have to be formulated. As a starting point, it is probably worth refreshing our understanding of the driving forces behind internet socialising, and then (with a newly heightened sensitivity to the consumer mindset) progress from there. Included below is a great little clip that certainly helped me clarify the old first principles.
So, as this quick minefield navigation draws to a close, it can be concluded that using Twitter as a commercial comms platform is a real proposition, but onethat (like any media opportunity) should be scrupulously deliberated in the context of the brand and all other alternative platforms. Either that or prepare for a grizzly war of attrition with Rob Manuel, Shitmaster and co.
Okay, so it’s Wednesday morning and I’m being bullied. It’s particularly bad today. This torment has been a part of my life for almost 3 years now, and recently it has become quite ferocious. My adversary is not big, not hulking and doesn’t flush my head down the toilet; but it is fiendish. I am being bullied by a question.
This particular morning, it’s so bad that I am forced to externalise. I blurt it out at my fellow academy member: “For God’s sake! What the hell is Twitter?”
Lilli, cool as a cucumber (as of per usual), curtly replies: “It’s where you update the world on what you’re up to, in 140 characters. It’s calling itself a micro-blogging service.” The pressure rises and the internal valves start to shake under the stress. I’ve probably turned red.
“No”, I seethe, “not what is it literally. What does it represent? What is its social function?”
“Ah” she says. Silence falls.
You see, plenty of ad folk have a fair grip on Twitter’s most obvious facilities (for those still catching up, a rather excellent clip explaining its most literal ins-and-outs is included below).
Our problem was that neither of us had a firm grasp on the far more slippery subject of its significance. Worse still, by the looks of things, neither did Twitter. No official line had been given on its reason for existence, its positioning, or its ambition.
You might think that all of this is really rather academic, and that the only solution I should be recommended is a planned course of tranquilisers. Well, I probably shouldn’t argue with you on the second point, but I will come at you full-force to contradict the former. I will stop you dead with: “if we don’t understand it’s social utility, we can’t use it as a commercial tool”. Not so academic anymore, huh?
As a result, in this update I will be exploring Twitter’s substance: its shape, how it sits, what it is. The first thing to get out of the way, is the pub-philosophy that Twitter simply represents the incredibly dull and self-important wittering into the dark about their preference of breakfast cereal (for a fully-fleshed out treatment of this aspersion, please see "The Twouble with Twitter").
Although the above video is excellent and does contain certain elements of truth, it is unfair to assume that it surmises all Twitter amounts to. In fact, the counter argument is quite clear. Faced with such blunt satire one can snappily retort that whilst people may be seemingly “micro-blogging” about the most mundane minutiae of their daily routines, other users (through the use of the “@” function) are replying. Moreover, one can moot that these replies are of a form and length that equals that of the original post. It can be continued, that these new comments can then also be responded to, and then those replies of replies can be met with subsequent....well you get the idea.
In short, it can offered that, far from solely enjoying e-rhetoric, Twitter participants also savour lighting the dialogical touchpaper - and then sitting back to watch as a self-perpetuating exchange crackles into life.
But does this then mean that Twitter is simply an e-message board, catering for all varieties of personal conversation; from the bogglingly complex to the arm chewingly mundane?That would be neat.
Too neat maybe. In fact, it would probably be healthy to view even this more sober conception with a spoonful of cynicism. The most obvious loose thread dangling temptingly from the weave of this neat little cardigan of an idea is the evidence that Twitter has also been used for conversations on a grander than “personal” scale. We might consider that over the past year it has adopted a “societal” function. This may seem a little involved, but bear with me, I can explain.
Remember the discoveries made by the Phoenix Mars module, in 2008. On the 31st July, the craft reported back to Houston news so huge that it threatened to redefine a scientific epoch; water had been found on the surface of the red planet. This was massive, it was fundamental that the world’s population knew as soon as physically possible. And how, you may ask, was this information disseminated? Well, firstly, by Twitter, of course.
This variety of incredible Twitter reportage littered the chronology of 2008 (for another “must Google” try the real-time coverage of the Mumbai disaster - staggering).
Its presence is not only of interest because of its novelty, but it also lends further structure to our concept of Twitter’s social significance. The fact that administrative bodies have entered into the fray definitely signals something bigger than the previously mooted “e-message board theory”.
With this mind, surely Twitter is a grand forum in the Roman tradition; where conversations held by governmental, commercial and social participants are floated on the same air?
Well, maybe, just maybe, that is it. The wool from our cardigan would have been woven into a far more complex suit, but we’re left with a fine article nonetheless.
But, as with so many internet phenomena, the key tenets are not so easily assembled and to parade this conclusion around as the absolute truth would again be demonstrating chronic simplification. Twitter just isn’t that clear-cut.
There are a whole host of other Twitter-ish concepts that, having melted into its fundaments, completely tangle the "grand forum" definition.
Firstly, we might consider that, unlike almost every social network to go before it, Twitter encourages lop-sided interaction. Tweeters can follow exactly who they like without having to be followed in return. Vice-versa, users can accumulate a whole host of followers to whom they need never pay the slightest hint of attention. This is clearly not the sort of behaviour that would go down at all well in our Roman forum.
Secondly, we should pay at least some mind to hashtagging. These little articles have caused a real stir in the blogosphere. In the tradition of all great ingenuity, hashtagging is an idea that is incredibly simple in concept but hugely impressive in practice.
To clarify, a hashtag is simply a “#” demarcated phrase placed at the end of a tweet, used to label the content of the post. For example I might tweet: “Thought Sir’alan was a bit rough last night. Probably just needs a hug. #Theapprentice”.
Now, as mentioned, this is all pretty uncomplicated, but its social effect deserves a little more attention. Using Twitter Search, surfers can enter tags to see organised lists of the global chatter surrounding their chosen topics. The forum analogy takes another blow here, as we can now see that Twitter’s conversations are even more uniquely textured than originally thought: they are selectable by subject matter alone.
Then, thirdly, there is its adaptability: its facility to be used for unpredicted ends. As a magnificent side-effect of its indistinct purpose, Twitter has become rather elastic: changing and evolving in-line with the needs of its users.
Facebook’s apps are used for specific, pre-designated purposes. The same is true for the functions of Bebo, Linked-In and Orcut. On Twitter, however, things are far less restrictive. Not all of its functionality is handed out in neat little pre-considered packages, where all conversational eventualities are provided for and guided. Supplied with a natty openly interpretable information architecture, the Tweeter is free to make of the space exactly what he/she wants. A fine example of this is made by the inveterate Tweeter, Steven Fry (or Uncle Steve, as he is known in my flat). The traditional mechanisms of the site suggest that if a user was following someone and wanted to be followed in return, he/she would send them a direct message to request this. Uncle Steve, however, has found himself in a social situation that inhibits such tactics: he has 427,242followers. If everyone that wanted to be followed by him adhered to the orthodox practice, then his account would become an unmanageable nightmare. In reaction, Stevie has taken the incentive and found a way to use Twitter’s undefined structure to his own benefit. Using his comment wall, he simply asks all of those that want to be seen by him to post an update labelled with a “followmestephen#” hashtag. In this way, all the great Frymaster need do, is use Twitter Search to see a tidily arranged list of every single one of his requesting followers: their pleas taking up space on their own walls, not his.
Beyond this example, it is clear that Twitter will continue to evolve and grow as the whims of its users fragment and multiply. What makes this especially striking is its eerie reflection of the freedoms of “real world” interaction.
At this point, insisting on the integrity of the “grand forum” concept might seem a little churlish. Perhaps we should look towards an entirely separate definition - one not yet mentioned.
Bearing all of the above observations in mind, I would argue that Twitter offers a glimpse of what a truly democratised global scale e-conversation looks like.
So that’s it; not a pretty catchphrase but as near to a discreet designation it's currently possible to get myself.
