TV is not TV anymore
New York Magazine has a thoughtful article by Mark Harris on the much commented upon “future of TV” in a digital era. Harris goes beyond general commentary on digital platforms and niche audiences – there are really interesting observations here about the way different audiences watch, and why, and how networks are trying to adapt to an indie, niche oriented culture while also tapping enough of cultural vein to score a big hit.
TV for true believers is thriving. The deep engagement of a devoted but relatively tiny audience—the basic-cable dynamic—is now a compromise that even networks are beginning to accept, if not embrace. If any newcomers were to sample Fringe or Community, they’d likely find both series flat-out incomprehensible. Those shows and their acolytes now speak an almost private language to each other, and that’s okay. TV that rewards its most faithful and attentive viewers usually has a lot more dynamism and integrity than the kind of blandly accessible-to-all programming that imploringly throws itself at the Nielsen equivalent of the undecided voter.
Which isn’t to say that the networks are giving up on the gold standard of a huge hit—a Cosby Show for the new century, or at least a CSI for the new decade. It’s now widely accepted that everything’s niche, but broadcast television still lives in hope of finding a niche that’s, you know, really, really big. Failing that, it faces a dilemma—would it rather have an audience of 4 million talkers, tastemakers, and tweeters, or 10 million viewers who just forgot to change the channel after Dancing With the Stars? That uncertainty is likely to pervade next fall’s lineups. The networks are finally working to figure out what ideas they can poach from cable—more daring content, an “indie sensibility” (though what the networks mean by that isn’t so much Girls as New Girl), fewer episodes per season, star casting with actors who will commit to only a small number of episodes a year. Those growing pains—maybe they’re really shrinking pains—will be good for a medium that is at its best when complacency is not an option. But right now, every decision, every tonal or structural shift, feels like an attempt to keep abreast of tastes that seem to morph by the month…
As TV evolves, so does our way of watching—sometimes in two opposite directions at once. This spring has brought a good deal of pissing and moaning about how there’s too much good stuff to watch on Sunday nights—even though, in the DVR era, a one-night embarrassment of riches shouldn’t matter. But the rise of tweeting and recapping makes it matter (as the magazine’s TV critic explains, just to the right): In order to engage fully in the energized dialogue that’s taking place about TV, you pretty much have to watch shows the way your ancestors did—right when they air—or risk having your Monday ruined by a minefield of Internet spoilers. So given the luxury of personal convenience or the fun of instant web communality, which brave new world do you choose?
The whole piece is worth a read.
Photo by espensorvik used under Creative Commons License.
Mapped in NY: NYC launches a local digital jobs map
Did you know that New York City has the fastest growing tech sector in the country ? I didn’t – but Mayor Michael Bloomberg does. Which is a relief, because it’s kind of his job.
Anyway, Bloomberg just announced the launch of the Made in NY Digital Map, an interactive tool that highlights local tech and digital startups with job openings – and investors, incubators, and co-working spaces.
Race and ethnicity: New York City, Eric Fischer
Besides just being cool and super useful, the resource is intended to connect digitally savvy city residents with local companies (many companies hire talent from outside the city) and address NYC’s unemployment rate, almost two points higher than the national average. Officials hope the map will encourage local grads with tech and digital skills will look for jobs in the city instead of fleeing for presumed nerdier climes (another new thing I learned today: NYC is second only to Silicon Valley in growth of new tech companies).
If you’re a New Yorker and on the hunt for a tech job, Mapped in NY is definitely something you should check out.
Photo by Eric Fischer, used with Creative Commons License.
Anil Dash: How to fix Popchip’s racist ad campaign
Anil Dash
Somehow, despite the inevitable backlash, brands and advertising agencies continue to make really racially offensive ads to sell products, the latest being Popchips, which just pulled ads featuring Ashton Kutcher in brownface as “Raj.”
Not that I think America is postracial or anything – far from it – but as the country is increasingly diverse, and issues of race and ethnicity are so much at the front of public consciousness, you’d think ad companies and brands would steer clear overt racist stereotypes if only to avoid a PR fiasco. Apparently not. At least it gives comedians material to work with:
In light of the Ashton Kutcher PopChips scandal, I feel obliged to confess that in my AmEx spots I am also wearing brown face.
— Aziz Ansari (@azizansari) May 3, 2012
In honor of the PopChips scandal, let’s all watch Short Circuit 2 today & have our heads explode. #IndianGuyisActuallyFisherStevens
— Aziz Ansari (@azizansari) May 3, 2012
I’m not surprised that ad agencies would pitch ideas that rely on racial stereotypes. These things are rather likely to happen in an industry that’s extremely homogenous and part of a broader culture where structural and individual racism remain serious problems. What I am surprised by is how companies always seem so taken aback by and unprepared for any backlash against media that perpetuates stereotypes. It says a lot about an industry culture (and again, broader culture) that it doesn’t seem to occur to anyone that their content might be received differently by people from different backgrounds, and people don’t seem to have any prior preparation or training to talk about issues of diversity.
Given that I was glad to see a response from Anil Dash that squarely put the responsibility for this ad on the creatives and industry culture that produced it. What’s often missing in justifiably angry responses to media like this is much discussion of how the material was produced in the first place – or a who, besides the brand and the actors involved, was responsible for it. Dash names the advertising and PR firms that were involved in conceptualizing and promoting the campaign – not something you see very often in protests against racism in media – as well as media figures who covered the campaign seemingly without realizing that it was offensive.
Popchips should not pull this ad down: Instead, they should leave it up and link to not an apology, but an explanation of how their process failed and resulted in this racist ad being created. I think this company doesn’t want its culture to be racist, and they can best demonstrate that by showing how they learn from examples where it happens despite their best efforts. It’s like if rat droppings were found in a bag of Popchips: You wouldn’t solve it by saying “We threw away that bag of chips!” You’d solve it by saying “Here’s what we’re doing to clean up things at the factory.”
The firm which led the creation of the ad, should name the team members who participated in its creation: Zambezi, which made this ad, should let its staff own the mistake and talk about how they’ll prevent it in the future. Don’t falsely feature the one or two people of color who undoubtedly were part of the team, but show them all together, talking about how they came up with this idea, and what the responses were in the room. If someone said, “I don’t know, this might not fly!” then share that with people so others in the future can better learn to trust their instincts on this. If your team isn’t very inclusive, and everyone thought it was okay because they come from similar cultural backgrounds where these kinds of offensive things aren’t considered hurtful, then talk about how it’s something you need to learn. It’s fine to say something like, “Our creative director is Brian Ford, and he grew up in Oregon where he didn’t get exposed to very many Indian people who could explain how hurtful this kind of media can be.” But don’t sweep it under the rug.
Boycotting a single brand without also calling out the range of people involved in producing and promoting something racially problematic doesn’t change much about the industry in the long run. This is an institutional problem, not a bunch of random, isolated problems. Writing off one company is only a solution until the next racist commercial comes along. People in the industry have to work to do better than they have for things to change; it would be nice if they did that out of personal conviction, but public pressure will do in a pinch. As Dash writes, conviction is hard to come by when metrics and impressions count more than than a small minority of upset viewers – which isn’t to say we shouldn’t keep trying to appeal to better impulses.
Understand, Keith Belling and Pat Turpin and Brian Ford and Chris Raih and Alison Brod and, yes, Ashton Kutcher: Right now you’re making the world worse. Not just for me, or a billion other Indian people, but for my son, who I am hoping never has to grow up with people putting on fake Indian accents in order to mock him. Maybe people won’t be familiar with that stereotype if you, yes you personally, can refrain from spending millions of dollars and countless hours of your time on perpetuating that stereotype in order to sell potato chips. Potato chips! You’re hurting people and demeaning them in order to sell your chips.
I think Dash is on to something important about the growing market power of marginalized communities to put more pressure on the industry. Even in the rather nasty climate of racism and racial resentment that’s been brewing since the 2008 election, racial offensiveness is something most brands don’t care to be associated with (though not something they seem to think much about before they run with an idea). Maybe the time is ripe for more assertive responses to racist ads that call on the industry to explain the thinking that goes into making these ads, and how they plan to improve that process in the future.
Photo by joi, used with Creative Commons License.
Rethinking Take Your Child to Work Day?
This has nothing to do with Take Your Child to Work Day, but it is an adorable picture of a little boy in a very important office! Close enough?
The title of Sarah Damaske’s HuffPo piece on “Rethinking Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day” had me initially concerned that it was an argument against taking girls to work – in which case I’d have been ready to break out the pitchforks (kidding!). Fortunately, it’s not that, but instead a thought-provoking piece on which girls and women have access to paid work and can look forward to careers in white collar and professional fields:
My research finds that, on the verge of adulthood, middle-class women are much more likely to anticipate a lifetime of full-time workforce participation than are working-class women. One participant, Jodi, explained these expectations “weren’t vocalized, but I was expected to go to school and do well in school. And it was just a given that I would be going to college and then to work. There was nothing more to it than that.” My research suggests that middle-class families may be better positioned to help their daughters take advantage of the cultural shifts that made women’s workforce participation more acceptable. When middle-class parents take their daughters to work in law firms or accounting offices or universities, their daughters can reasonably expect that they will be able to find comparable work one day.
Women who grow up in working-class households, on the other hand, are much more likely to wonder whether or not they will work for pay. Because full-time women’s work is associated with the middle-class, many working-class women grow up thinking it is out of reach. Working-class women saw their own families’ dismissal of women’s paid work, their mother’s unsatisfactory work experiences, bad school experiences, and early romances as signs that they should forgo full-time work. A guidance counselor told a working-class participant, “What do you want to be a doctor for? Ha! You’re going to grow up, get married, and have kids. What do you want to be a doctor for? That’s just going to hold you back.”
Working-class women are now much less likely to participate in the paid workforce than are middle-class women. In fact, as women’s education levels increase, so, too, does their workforce participation, as a 2008 report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics report shows; 85 percent of women with postgraduate degrees work, compared to 80 percent of college graduates, 68 percent of high school graduates, and only 48 percent of women with less than a high school degree.
Damaske’s research raises other important points about the devaluing of paid and unpaid domestic work that women, especially women who are poor and/or of color, do. I think her conclusion that working class girls stand to benefit most from events like Take Your Child to Work Day (while being less likely to have access to them), but there’s also a conversation to be had here about what kinds of women’s work we value and why – e.g., about how low income women and/or women of color doing domestic work and other traditionally “female” work are rarely the face of the vaunted “career woman.”
Image from Official White House Flickr, used under United States Goverment Work license.
Original digital programming: Here to stay…
…or at least here for the near forseeable future. Online content providers are investing ever more aggressively in producing original programming, cultivating new talent, and even acquiring existing properties with built in fan-bases. Among the latest news: Netflix, which already has at least one season of Arrested Development in the pipeline, is now in talks to revive the post-apocalyptic cult-hit Jericho - again.
It’s unclear what the immediate payoff or long-term potential of these efforts are. I mean, let’s be real – how many people do you know who are watching Lillyhammer (from Netflix) or Battleground (Hulu)? I know exactly zero. Both companies have been pretty hedgy on concrete audience metrics for their in-house productions, and critics’ responses to these programs has been decidedly mixed. But clearly digital content companies have decided that original programming is worth pouring a lot of money into, and there’s no sign of that trend slowing down.
In fact, things are just starting to get really interesting, both in terms of the competition to corner the market on original content and moves by networks to protect their content and preserve the traditional media model as much as possible. Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube are already deep into TV production – and now Amazon is also joining the fray as well. Its movie production arm, Amazon Studios, just announced that it’s taking pitches for original sitcoms and children’s series.
In recent weeks, both YouTube and Hulu have hosted upfronts, once the exclusive domain of traditional network and cable studios, for advertisers. YouTube has been particularly ambitious, bringing in big-name celebrities like Madonna and Jay-Z to develop channels – Hova himself put in a surprise appearance and set at YouTube’s upfronts – and promising $200 million in advertising to promote its channels and programming, including a drama “for women” that’s, inexplicably, directed and produced by dudes:
YouTube also announced three new channels, including one called Wigs that will focus on scripted dramas for women. It’s created by producer Jon Avnet (“Black Swan,” “Fried Green Tomatoes”) and director Rodrigo Garcia (“Albert Nobbs,” “In Treatment”) and features the actresses Virginia Madsen, Julia Stiles and Jennifer Beals.
Also newly announced is a TeamUSA channel from the U.S. Olympic Committee that will feature content ahead of the 2012 games. Tribeca Enterprises, the parent company of the Tribeca Film Festival, is also creating a channel in partnership with YouTube veteran Maker Studios. That channel, dubbed the Picture Show, will debut later this year.
These forays into original content production are definitely making a splash in the media and an impression on the industry. And there’s no question that the explosion in available streaming content has changed viewing patterns, especially for younger viewers. Lots of twenty-somethings don’t have TVs, or are considering giving up cable (yours truly included) – if they haven’t already. But declarations that digital content platforms represent the “future of TV” – whether about media distribution models or the potential of original online content – seem very premature to me. After all, traditional networks aren’t going to take the challenge to their business model lying down.
This is evident in moves by mainstream studios to increase licensing fees and negotiate more stringent deals with online content providers – and especially with the latest news that Fox is in talks with Hulu to implement an authentication model for its content, limiting access to Fox shows to viewers who can prove they have a subscription:
It makes sense that now is the time Fox would strike. Hulu (and Netflix as well) are early in their efforts to create original content. And while those companies say publicly that their original shows are meeting their expectations, they haven’t been precisely clear about what those expectations were, or whether that means they’re even close to garnering network-level (or even cable-style) audiences for that programming. They’re nowhere near close to telling the television networks to shove it, so Fox is striking in what it sees as one of a few remaining moments of opportunity, especially because it wants to make sure it can retain the cash to pay its retransmission fees. The cable companies need to hang on to their subscribers both to ensure their own profits, and to meet their own outside demands. Until retransmission fees are out of the equation, it’s hard to imagine that this model is going to change dramatically.
This move may make Hulu more attractive to networks that have so far been reluctant to license their content out.
Networks are trying to preserve as much as possible the traditional model in a digital age – not just limiting access to content and making it more difficult for online providers to profit from their content, but also making the case for their own digital content as a supplement to regular TV programming. So while viewers may increasingly tune in on our laptops and smartphones, and while we may check out the odd original program on Hulu or YouTube – maybe even become hardcore fans – it’s early times yet to proclaim the imminent death of the television set.
Photo by thms.nl, used under a Creative Commons license.
How the media you consume can change your life
I love this video created by LoveSocial and MissRepresentation.org (and the accompanying infographic) for International Women’s Day. It somehow manages to be fun and playful while effectively communicating an issue that’s actually kind of depressing.
It’s interesting that they juxtapose issues of media influence on girls and self-image with the lack of women in leadership roles. The implied argument is not only that misrepresentation and negative images of women in media both fuel discrimination against women, but also that in the absence of media literacy that allows female viewers to take a critical eye to the media they take in, these images can also hamper girls and women’s ambition and confidence, with serious implications for individual careers and gender parity overall. In other words, the media we consume, and how we consume it, can make us viewers inclined to take women less seriously as leaders – and in the case of female viewers, to take themselves and other girls and women less seriously. It parallels some of what Kerry Washington said recently about how art can expand our understandings of what’s possible in the real world – if art can expand how we imagine what’s possible, it can also limit it.
On a less serious note: any bets on how much longer the current trend of videos in this style (text/chart heavy, lots of rotating camera angles, pulsating music) will go on? I enjoy the style, but it’s a bit, well, everywhere lately. Mix it up, media production companies!
[Womanist Musings] The importance of web series
[Drama Queenz, episode 1]
Renee at the Womanist Musings blog has a great post on why web series are so important for marginalized creators and audiences. Thanks to her post I’m now on to Drama Queenz, a web series about three black gay men trying to make it in New York’s theater scene. I just watched the first episode (above) and loved it!
Renee makes a great point about the racist backlash against Issa Rae and The Misadventures of Awkward Black Girl when the series won this year’s Shorty award for Best Web Show:
When marginalized people complain about the bias in media, the constant retort is if you don’t like it, go make your own…the response to the success of The Misadventures of AWKWARD Black Girl tells us that what they really mean is be quiet and accept what we give you.
In other words, the problem isn’t just that certain kinds of characters, stories, and creators are underrepresented in media. It’s also that some viewers who belong to demographics that are overrepresented (“mainstream”) in the media are threatened by the existence of what little “non-traditional” content exists, especially if it draws in an audience. Any noticeable progress towards acknowledging the existence and complexity of marginalized groups in media is often seen as a “take over” of media by special interests. This mindset is what leads people to complain that shows like Glee are “too gay,” despite the serious lack of LGBT characters on television, or to complain that a handful of new female-led and created sitcoms are creating a “peak vagina” situation and “labia saturation” in the media.
Issa Rae made a similar point in her response to racist anger over her Shorty Award win, that critics assumed the series was of less quality and less deserving simply because it explicitly centers a black character:
As was demonstrated by some of the Shorty Award tweets, some people can’t get past the “black” in the title. The bewilderment that our show not only exists, but that it could actually be good is indicative of how mainstream media thinks. I’m pretty sure none of the people tweeting that I’d only get three-fifths of my award had even seen an episode of our show, but they were 100 percent positive that it couldn’t be as good as whatever it is someone who didn’t look like me produced.
This mindset is exactly why creative shows of color don’t get to exist on television anymore. There’s an overbearing sense of entitlement that refuses to allow shows of color to thrive. How dare we even try?
As Renee says, independent media is threatening to some because challenges widespread media messages and puts control over the message in the hands of people outside the mainstream – which is exactly why it’s so important for underrepresented demographics. What’s great is that despite institutional obstacles and opposition, marginalized creators continue to find ways to make their visions reality and produce great content.
Opening today: Andrew Dosunmu’s “Restless City”
Restless City, the first feature film from Nigerian photographer and filmmaker Andrew Dosunmu, opens in limited release today in New York, LA, and Atlanta. The film premiered at Sundance in 2011 and has been heralded as a visually stunning, “intense twist on the American Dream” that offers a glimpse of a side of New York that’s invisible in most media: the vibrance and struggles of the city’s West African immigrant community.
Restless City is released by the African-American Film Festival Releasing Movement (AFFRM), a collective founded by filmmaker Ava Duvernay to support and distribute independent films by black creators. Duvernay herself is an up-and-coming director who became the first black woman to win the best director award at Sundance in January of this year.
I’m a Nigerian immigrant myself, so I’m extra excited to see a quality project from a Nigerian filmmaker, and to see a film about West Africans where most of the characters are actually played by West Africans (you’d be surprised how rare this is). Sy Alassane, who plays the male lead Djibril, is Senegalese, and Nigerian-British Tony Okungbonwa, aka Tony Ok, DJ for The Ellen Show, also stars. And the cinematography was shot by Bradford Young, who also shot the gorgeous Pariah. I’d love to see and support the film – here’s hoping the expanded release makes it to Boston.
Ellen reads “Fifty Shades of Grey”
I’d never heard of Fifty Shades of Grey until a couple weeks ago; now it seems like there’s news about it everywhere. I guess that’s what happens when a BDSM erotica novel becomes the #1 bestseller in the country, in large part on the strength of e-book sales. And apparently there are three of them? In fact, four of the top three bestseller spots are currently occupied by the Fifty Shades trilogy. There’s even a movie in the works. Good Lord.
There’s been all manner of commentary on the book and its popularity – criticisms of the quality of the writing, musings on e-readers and the end of shame, thinly veiled soapboxing about how submission fantasies mean women secretly hate feminism, breathless exposés of how even men are into it. But I think this hilarious sketch by Ellen may be my favorite riff on the Fifty Shades hype:
Remember: don’t eat the pancakes!
dream hampton’s music video debut: THEESatisfaction’s “QueenS”
Hip hop chronicler and filmmaker dream hampton’s first music video, for THEESatisfaction’s “QueenS,” has been getting lots of love in the past few weeks – with good reason. The visuals are gorgeous – sumptuous and, if you’ll pardon the unintentional pun, have an almost dreamy quality. The intimate house party setting captures the carefree, funky vibe of the track.
Mickalene Thomas, A Moment’s Pleasure #2, 2008
In a funny coincidence, not long after watching the video, I came across the above image of Mickalene Thomas’s painting “A Moment’s Pleasure #2″ on the Black Contemporary Art Tumblr. I was struck by how closely the video evoked both the feel of the painting and its rich textured look. So I wasn’t surprised to read that hampton was directly inspired by Thomas’s work.
I made a tumblr for their treatment. Of course, photographer and painter Mickalene Thomas’ work was a direct reference, but it had pics of women and girls being at ease–even joyful–in all women spaces. One of the pics was of me and my roommates Crystal and Helen from 1994, dancing in the living room of our Fort Greene apartment in our nightgowns.
I love the diverse expressions of black femininity – butch, femme, and everything in between – represented in the video, and how it draws on vibrant, joyful images and memories of black women and sisterhood. It’s starkly different from almost any image of black women you’d see in mainstream media – no doubt because it so clearly comes from a place of intimate knowledge of and love for black women.
