SLEEPING GAG:
A product idea becomes a joke — and then a product.
A lot of ThinkGeek’s customers, fooled or not, didn’t simply want to appreciate the funny idea of a Tauntaun sleeping bag. They wanted to own one. And said so in tens of thousands of e-mail messages and phone requests.
Read the column in the November 29, 2009, New York Times Magazine, or here.
Discuss, make fun of, or praise this column to the skies at the Consumed Facebook page.
Posted Under:
Consumed
This post was written by
Rob Walker on November 28, 2009
Comments Off

[The Product Is You* is an occasional Murketing.com series collecting advertising that is aimed at advertisers: Magazines or television networks packaging up their consumers — that is, you, the potential ad target — in ways designed to attract advertisers. ]
Just as Bravo pushes the idea that its viewers are “affluencers” (well-off and inflential people, desirable to advertisers), the WE network concocts a name for those who watch its programming: They are “I Do-ers.” Does this mean they are overly willing to get married??
Not exactly. Read more
Okay, then, an update on the recent-sh post, titled The Marketplace of (Other Peoples’?) Ideas. Basically this was me thinking out loud about indie creators who feel their work is getting ripped off by big companies, and what if anything can be done about it. Notably:
A prominent theory of Web-thought is that such exposure [of alleged ripoffs, online] ought to spark some kind of response and ideally resolution of the specific instances — and, you would think, a downtick in the number of such instances. And yet it seems routine.
I had a number of private conversations with various folks about this post after it went up. The upshot is as follows. Read more
I don’t know how closely you’re following the inquiry over in Great Britain about that country’s decision to involve itself in the Iraq war. And I don’t have much to say about that.
But hey, how about the logo! What do you think of the type treatment? Is this going to make the Iraq Inquiry the breakout inquiry of 2010?



No column in the NYT Mag today, but of course you should go buy the Sunday paper anyway. As always you can check out murketing.tumblr.com or facebook.com/consumed if you’re bored, I tend to update those even when I’m too busy to say anything here, as I have been lately. I hope to get some half-written stuff finished and onto this site in the week ahead, but then I hoped that last week, too.
Meanwhile I’ve noticed a few “Stand By” graphic treatments lately. My opening slide when I was doing Powerpointy self-promotion in connection with Buying In was in fact the classic stand-by color bars. Often the A/V guy would find it confusing. I’ve wondered if anybody else even remembers the image, so I guess I’m glad to see evidence that people do. Anyway if you happen to know of more examples I’d love to see them!

Sewing Room TV Cover by modernjax

By Frank Chimero

Also by Frank Chimero, whose work is excellent.
REALITY BYTES
Does ‘augmented reality’ technology help us see deeper into what’s before our eyes?
This phrase has become one of the pervasive buzz concepts of 2009, and as is often true in such cases, it seems to describe a variety of manifestations from the practical to the pointless to the pie in the sky….
Read the column in the November 15, 2009, New York Times Magazine — a special entertainment-focused issue — or here.
Discuss, make fun of, or praise this column to the skies at the Consumed Facebook page.
I’m on an unsubscribe binge. So many people have put me on so many email lists it’s just gotten overwhelming. I have to do something.
Naturally, I feel like a jerk about it. I imagine these people checking their unsubscribes (as I’ve done during periods when I’ve run email lists) and wondering: What happened? Why doesn’t he like me anymore? Is there something wrong with these email updates, or with the recent iteration of whatever work is described therein?
And I totally understand why people put me on their lists in the first place — without asking (this is routine). Usually it’s someone I’ve written about. So: If I was interested once, won’t I be interested forever? And in a way, I am interested. But I’ve written hundreds of columns (and articles besides) and getting weekly or monthly updates from everybody, ever, is just insane. Not to mention people I’ve just met, liked, and given a business card.
Still, it feels horrible to unsubscribe. Listen, all of you: It’s nothing personal! I’m sorry…
James Ledbetter of The Big Money posts about a recent appearance he made on CNBC, debating with a professor about the claim that Wal*Mart, by lowering prices, is a benevolent force in the American economy, and American life in general. The prof says yes. Ledbetter says, basically, that if one takes a broader view, not everything that lowers prices is necessarily an unalloyed good.
I cringe to provide a link to the segment, but here it is. My fellow guest was a business professor from the University of Michigan, who has advocated that Wal-Mart should be given the Nobel Peace Prize. I tried to argue that it’s strange to say that anything that lowers prices is intrinsically good. [CNBC co-anchor Dennis] Kneale interrupted me with the comment “It is!”
Well, if unemployment is good, then slave labor is better, right? If Wal-Mart could lower its labor costs to zero, imagine how rock-bottom its prices could be. I asked Kneale: “If [a $35] DVD player is produced by slave labor in China, is that a good thing?” His reply: “Yeah, it’s a real good thing, if I can buy it for $35.”
It seemed hard to believe that someone would actually say this on television.
Agreed! In fact I had to watch the segment because I found it hard to believe! The exchange Ledbetter highlights comes at about the 3:40 mark.
I guess the explanation for Kneale’s callous statement is that he wasn’t actually listening to anything Ledbetter said. Which is the real problem with the entire segment. In some ways what’s most startling about it (I haven’t watched CNBC in years) is that both CNBC anchors completely sided with the professor from the beginning, and basically the whole thing consisted of all of them berating Ledbetter for daring to say anything that challenge pure-free-market doctrines, or that might make somebody, oh, I don’t know, actually think. In this bit they pivoted to demanding to know what proof Ledbetter had to back up his hypothetical — a tired rhetorical sleight-of-hand tactic designed to divert the conversation in an irrelevant direction (it was a hypothetical, not an allegation, that the CNBC guy responded to).
The prof has a point, early in the segment, when he says it’s not Wal*Mart that drives mom and pops out of business — it’s consumers, who choose to shop at Wal*Mart because its prices are (or generally seem) lower. Which is why it would be a good thing if more people were more thoughtful about more of the consumption decisions. That’s essentially the direction Ledbetter might have pushed a viewer or two … if he’d been allowed to express his views.

[The Product Is You* is an occasional Murketing series collecting advertising that is aimed at advertisers: Magazines or television networks (or in this case a Web company) packaging up their consumers — that is, you, the potential ad target — in ways designed to attract advertisers. ]
In today’s installment, Yahoo enlightens the advertising public (meaning the public that is made up of advertising/marketing people) about its users. The pitch explains: “We built it for him; Now it’s all about YOU!” That is, Yahoo is “all about” potential advertisers.
Above, a fellow I will call Yahoo Dude. And below, Yahoo Mom. They’re a somewhat disconcerting pair in that Yahoo Dude, even at a glance, seems a bit feckless to be a father. Kind of like that Levi Johnston guy. And Yahoo Mom looks about the same age. Or maybe she’s younger — sort of a Juno vibe? (I never actually saw Juno.) Anyway I don’t think we’re supposed to see them as a couple.
Point is: More after the jump.

Read more
Yesterday somebody using the Robwalker.net contact form sent a message, and all it said was: “Read my blog.” Followed by a link.
I found this depressing. Somehow it seemed to sum up the entire state of online “dialogue” these days — a blunt demand for attention. But points for honesty, I guess.