Anyone can write a children's book these days...no really...Anyone.

     I think my mom is beautiful. I think my grandmother is beautiful. I appreciate it when women age gracefully. Yet, there's a whole industry out there for people that are trying to reverse the clock. I understand how celebrities getting work done will encourage people to go under the knife but there is a point when advocating plastic surgery is unacceptable. Michael Salzhauer, MD, a Florida plastic surgeon, wrote a book called My Beautiful Mommy about a mom and her young daughter. The mother is going in for surgery (nose job, tummy tuck, and a breast augmentation) and she explains that she will look different but prettier. I'm concerned about how this will affect a young child's self esteem and way of thinking. At young ages, children are very susceptible to ideas. If they are being shown at such a young age that plastic surgery makes you prettier then when they are older they will feel inadequate and want surgery themselves. Imagine that girl waking up one day, looking in the mirror, and seeing her mom's pre-surgery "ugly" nose. Of course she's not going to want it!
    The media is really influential on children, but a lot of children aren't exposed to plastic surgery and a lot of other social tragedies while watching cartoons or children's programming. A lot of them have their parents read to them, thus giving the parents the control over what books are read. This book is giving them what TV shows won't. It is advocating something that can become dangerous behavior. There's a reason cartoon-like animals aren't allowed to advocate cigarettes anymore, because that directly affected children. A children's book is even more direct. We have to consider the fact that the author of the book is a plastic surgeon...and he loves getting paid.

Capture the Babe? I don't think so.

Women have fought to be respected by men. Many aspects of the media constantly put them down. Magazines make women feel like objects, music videos make women simply sexual beings, movies portray them as weaker than men, and songs are just plain offensive. So it doesn't surprise me that videogames follow the trend. Duke Nukem Forever is a videogame where players can play in "Capture the Babe" mode where the player has to abduct women and slap them. Yes, slap them. Women are portrayed as strippers and prostitutes, the main character in the game even gets implied oral from twins dressed up as school girls. How DISGUSTING. While this game has received an M rating, it is not enough of a barrier to keep children from purchasing it.
Games with violence have shown aggressive behavior amongst it's players. This game can possibly increase feelings of male superiority over women and increase violence against them. It is not uncommon that violent crimes against a person aren't over anger but done as a show of power. This is encouraging men to violently show their "power" over women. It is degrading. Where do we draw the line on what is acceptable? If a war game receives an M rating, should this receive something more severe? Where do we draw the line between what is implied sexual content and what is some form of pornography?
I am currently too annoyed to keep writing. This is ridiculous.

The World is Your Stage

Many years ago it took knowing someone to become famous. Now people can take that into their own account via social networking sites and other mediums that allow for us to distribute content to millions of people just by posting it online. While this allows for more talent to be discovered, this also allows for some pretty crazy stuff to be posted online. Sometimes these posts don't necessarily help the person's fame, in fact they give them a horrible reputation. This is something two California Girls learned recently.

A UCLA student posted an anti-Asian rant online not so long ago. This rant went viral and ended up in the student receiving death threats and many hateful comments. Being a political science student with any aspirations of someday becoming a politician (and relying on votes) she wasn't very smart in posting a racist rant. Although racism isn't completely gone from our country, it is frowned upon and when someone targets one group so hatefully it is seen as something horrible. Once something is posted online, it doesn't go away easily. This will follow her for the rest of her life. At her age she should've known better.

Now, the song that's been called the Worst Song Ever and the Worst Music Video Ever: Rebecca Black's "Friday." That song was so bad that it went viral. Unfortunately, it resulted in cyber-bullying towards the singer and many spoofs. Her talent as a singer was even questioned. What will people do to become famous? Was this a joke just to get publicity? I hope so. But I do think that the Social Media enabled people to bully a 13 year old girl. This type of fame wasn't the good kind. She's a joke now.

Social Media sites allow anyone to post and anyone can be heard. It's a freedom that we should not take lightly. Whatever is online is there for pretty much forever. It's a stage that never goes away, where your "performance" can be viewed over and over again. Watch out fellow cast-mates!

                                                               UCLA RANT

                                                            

                                                              FRIDAY SPOOF

Social Networking affecting Business

Have you ever heard of someone getting fired over something they posted on Facebook? Or an athlete getting a fee for a Twitter post? Well, it's not uncommon. In fact, I even have friends that have deactivated their Facebook accounts while they were in an interview process for a job or admission to a program. One friend even deactivated it while he was pledging a very strict fraternity at Dartmouth. Social networking sites provide people a way to communicate with others as well as post details about their daily lives. Some people post more frequently and more detail than they should. Where does the line between our personal lives and professional lives fade?
    Several days ago Chrysler ended it's relationship with New Media Strategies, a social media agency, over a tweet one of it's employees posted from Chrysler's Twitter account. Although it was meant to be posted to the employee's personal Twitter account, it was accidentally posted onto Chrysler's. This negative and explicit tweet made the company look bad. Although it was an accident, the employee was still careless and was fired for a post he made while he was at work. If he had just kept his frustration to himself, he might still have a job.
     We are all asked to be professional at work, if our personal lives are being tracked all over the internet when will we ever shed the overly professional exterior? Or will casual and relaxed become the new norm? How will Social Networking change professional relationships? I think the solution will be in leaving "something to the imagination" and knowing what's appropriate to post and what's not. After all, why do we NEED to let everyone know what we're doing, thinking, eating, feeling, buying, etc? Protect your own privacy and watch out what you post.

Disney Movie FLOPS?

Disney has been known to make some really good films for children, so it was a big surprise when their newly released "Mars Needs Moms" flopped. Could this mean that the reigning company for child entertainment was losing it's touch? Or were there just mistakes along the way? It is not uncommon in Hollywood for a film to be unsuccessful. We have grown so accustomed to films that we now expect great quality and innovation. We want the next great thing. So why is it that when an animated film tries something more new it flops?
   There are some theories as to why this film failed. One being the style of animation. Instead of using Pixar-style animation, making the cartoon characters very detailed but not extremely lifelike, they went with the Zemeckis technique. This requires the actors to be hooked up to a uniform with body sensors to pick up movement. While this animation may make a movie seem more realistic, is realism really what people want from a fictional cartoon?
     Another reason for the flop might be the plot itself. Children don't want to watch a movie about losing their moms. They don't want to think that their moms will be abducted by aliens. Children are easily convinced and can feel like this is real pretty easily. So, are film makers becoming careless? Should they consider their target audience more when choosing to produce a film? I think so. While the movie provides a new concept, it's not appealing to children. This was evident in the millions Disney lost on the release of this film. They need something new, what will be the next Toy Story, Monsters Inc, or Finding Nemo? Those were good, Show me what ya got Disney....not calling you out or anything.

They got to me....

Before reading, Watch this.

 

    Take a funny stereotype, an old song, and a comedic approach to a drink....and you have a good commercial. I am sad to say that I have fallen victim to this commercial. Yes, I actually bought a Sun Drop. Why? The commercial was funny. But at least the soda was good. This was clearly a commercial, but the focus wasn't explicitly on the product, it was more on the girl drinking it. And I think this actually made it more effective. It was approachable. I felt like I could relate. On a hot day, who doesn't want a cold drink? And who doesn't want to party during the summer. The commercial shows a fun atmosphere and that is what people want. Sometimes it's not even about showing the product that much, it's about being memorable. This was certainly memorable. I think I might even see some people dressed as her for Halloween. Some of my friends dressed like Flo from the Progressive commercials last summer. No matter what people may argue, this type of exposure will drive sales.

    Some popular ways for brands to get stuck in people's minds are by putting them in TV shows, movies, and even songs. Recently, B.O. B. got paid by Adidas just for saying "Kick it like Adidas" in his song 'Magic'. In 'Spiderman' he hits a can of Dr.Pepper when he discovers his webs. And on "The Nanny" they did a whole episode on Elizabeth Taylor's 'Black Pearls'. This is what I call sneaky advertising. The brand is put towards the people in an approachable way so that people are off-guard when exposed to it. Even magazines try to conceal the difference between what is an ad and what isn't. Seventeen magazine often has beauty tips and sometimes right next to them you'll see an ad for a skin care product, make-up, or a hair product in a similar format to the tips. Some ads even include tips. This makes people feel like if they want to look like the models in these editorial spreads, they need to use that brand. But the truth is that those models probably have used the product once in their lives. In the end, ads are made to be memorable and made to make people want to do something or buy something even if they don't need it. When money talks, the whole industry changes in order to get a piece of that. Where would we be if brands didn't exist and there was no competition? Impossible to think of, huh?

 

Going Digital

  I can't remember the last time I rented a movie from a store. Ever since I got Netflix, all I do is watch what comes in the mail or what's available on Instant. I even see more of my friends just stream movies and TV shows on Netflix. But do people really cancel their cable or other TV service and replace it with Netflix? What do they do when they have to wait to watch a new movie that Netflix doesn't have yet?      Comcast found these loopholes in Netflix's service. Comcast believes they can compete with Netflix because they offer newer content and people already subscribe to Comcast for other services. So it's convenient. Netflix offers a large library of old TV shows and movies as well as newly released content. Netflix has been increasing it's subscription fee and switching more licensing over to Instant, observing the trend that people are more likely to watch movies streamed Instantly than wait to receive something through the mail.
    Video stores have closed and we are seeing companies buckle under the pressure that this new competitor has placed on them. How will the film industry react if less people are actually buying the movies? Time will be the only way to tell. I doubt it'll be a long time before we can watch newly released movies for a fee through the production company's website. All I'm asking is: what's next?

Pushier than a Car Salesman?

     Earlier today I was cleaning my car and remembering how upset I was when I got it. It's a good car, but it wasn't the car I wanted. I wanted a Volvo and my parents had bought me a Toyota. Then I thought about why I wanted a Volvo...and honestly it wasn't because of design or function. It was because Edward Cullen drove one in the Twilight series. I instantly felt like I fell into the pool of crazy Twi-hards. Did I really want a car just because a fictional vampire dream man drove one?
     I thought I was reading a series for a cool story and a better past-time than watching TV but I was actually being exposed to product placement. His Volvo was constantly mentioned and made to sound like it was the cool and sophisticated car to drive. The gorgeous fashionista sister drove a BMW and Emmett, the rugged outdoor type drove a Jeep. While the author could have described the cars without naming the brands or even left the cars out (leaving them out would not have affected the story at all), she mentioned them many times. And it worked. This worries me. Where can we be safe from advertising? Is this constant flow of information some way of brainwashing people slowly? And why are brands so important to us?
    I looked through some other books I liked to read when I was a bit younger. I came across The Clique series. They mentioned Seven jeans and Keds plenty of times. I had been exposed to this stuff for years. Here I was thinking that the media didn't affect me much and I had actually been fed ads by some of my favorite books. Now I know why I find it so refreshing to read a book like The Sound and The Fury, no ads! Just like I can skip commercials on TV because of my DVR, I wish I could do that with books. It cheapens the content. But how can I know that a book I pick up will be free from this?

What do you think of brands being placed in teen books?

    

A world run by commercialism: Ads Galore

     We as a society don't even notice how many ads are fed to us on a daily basis. If you listen to the radio in the morning or watch tv, it is guaranteed you were exposed to an ad. Even newspapers are loaded with them. So it is a rare occurrence when someone will voluntarily watch commercials. The Super Bowl is that exception. Advertisers know that millions of people will be watching so they will spend millions on those ads. Super Bowl ads are also often very funny and tend to appeal more to people.
     One ad that really caught my attention was Best Buy's ad with Justin Bieber and the Osbournes. It makes fun at how fast technology moves. With Ozzy styled in Tron-like clothing getting more and more confused as the Gs kept increasing (3G to 4G, etc) Justin Bieber gets switched in (much like Best Buy can upgrade your older stuff for the newer version). They end the commercial comedically by the Osbournes asking what a "Bieber" is and a man (Bieber in disguise) saying "kinda looks like a girl." By feeding into what many people feel and say, they made an ad that was an instant hit. Kids loved Bieber, Parents loved Ozzy, and everyone thought that making fun of how older people "can't keep up with technology" was funny.
    Ads are getting more and more creative now. It's hard to get people's attention so they're becoming more aggressive. Tell me what you think :)

Tina Brown & the new Newsweek

     The magazine industry has been in a decline. While society frets about new technology and innovation, whole industries struggle to survive in our new digital jungle. An example of this is Newsweek. Newsweek recently merged with the Daily Beast in an effort to keep itself alive. With magazines often losing more money than they make it was important that Tina Brown, the editor-in-chief of Newsweek, cut costs. By going green and embracing some aspects of technology, she now uses e-mails (sent from her blackberry) instead of loads of faxes and prints. This even allows for her to cut shipping costs and messengers.Staff has been cut and writers will be paid per article and not be put on contract.
     The struggle to survive also means that in order to compete she will have to deliver fresh, new content. This is evident in the use of space and quality of the new magazine. It is said that it now includes "hot" columns, greater quality glossy paper, and more use of white space. Advertisers find this look to be more energetic and stylish. (Which is a VERY good sign for Newsweek!) A magazine with no advertising will die. By appealing to the advertisers, she is opening up more possibilities for this re-designed magazine.
Not only is the re-design of the magazine catching attention, but this new money-smart and somewhat frugal Tina Brown is. She has been known for notorious spending and loss of money for her magazines (hello, Vanity Fair and The New Yorker). Now she is quite changed, not only were her magazines in trouble, but her career was. Her legend was. I will certainly be interested to see if she can save this sinking ship.
    My look into the magazine industry may have been given to me by watching Ugly Betty, but I know this will be a struggle. But, this industry will not die without a fight. What do you think?

Honeycomb: Sweet Competition for Apple

      For a while now Apple has ruled over the technology kingdom. With it's infamous iPhone, iMacs being used in schools and MacBooks being the most popular computer among students, it is hard to see where other companies can compete. Google has decided to challenge Apple's iPad. Powered by Android technology, it too has a lot of cool apps. It has a 3D visual rendering system, updated video and music capabilities, as well as a home screen that allows widgets. Widgets provide real-time information that are convenient for the users (they don't have to open an app to know what's going on). The notifications aren't as distracting as the ones the iPad has, which makes the Honeycomb more user-friendly.
     Will Android technology beat Apple? Google has been a strong competitor and Apple has been slow to release the next big thing. Maybe it's just our society's blase attitude. We are never impressed unless something is truly innovative. Personally, I will not be purchasing an iPad or a Honeycomb. There will be always be something newer and more cutting edge, so it seems like a waste of money to me. Laptops serve the same purpose as these tablets. Need I remind us all of the netbook craze? They're just smaller laptops with less memory space...and internet can be reached from other devices. Mindless waste of money? I think so. Our society encourages competition, after all one company making all our gadgets just would not be right. So I leave you with this: Who's the new king in our technology kingdom?