Ad-dition: 2+2=5

I haven't posted in a while, mostly because I haven't really thought that there was anything that I have realized/ thought about that was really important. But I was going to do one a while ago on advertising, and that sort of fell to the wayside. And I just played Apples to Apples with my family, so I guess I can talk about that. Nothing much has happened in my life that warrants discussion, and this isn't a diary, so I guess we'll see what comes from this. Actually, I'll just let that be my first topic of discussion.


I'm beginning to think that I'm like J.D. from Scrubs, and actually like most people in the world, in that I only desire what I do not have. Once I get something, be it a present that I had wanted, music that I had been really eager to listen to, or even starting school, I very quickly no long want it. Not as quickly as J.D. does with Elliot, for those of you that have seen the show, but normally within a few weeks. That's why I'm partly glad that I don't have Guitar Hero, because I'd never want to play it if I did. I haven't wanted to play Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion since those first two weeks when I played it 10 hours a day after I borrowed it from Aaron. I was ready to get back to school and start senior year all during the summer, but about two weeks into it I couldn't wait to get out. I really hope that doesn't happen with Arrested Development, since I got all three seasons on DVD only a few days ago for Christmas. It seems like once I have obtained something, it instantly becomes part of my past. I guess this happens to everyone to some degree, and it's really frustrating isn't it? Oh well. I think it happened with this blog as well, I have always had lots of thought swirling around my head, but once I got this blog and had it for a few months I never really wanted to write in this.


So anyways, on to what I was going to write about about a month and a half ago but I never did (see above). It has to do with advertising and marketing. I've already talked to some people about this, most notably Priyanka, my dad, Kevin, and Mihir (those two just the first half). So anyways, about a month and a half ago Jason Huang, Mihir Sathe, Kevin Shimizu, Jamie Turley, Aaron Garg, and I all went shopping at Valley Fair to buy "hip" clothes for Austin to usher him into this decade (no offense Austin)(actually that along with my cd, which was and still is incredible [fusion of electronic and acoustic, talk to me about it to learn more/ if you want a copy {the ending is an emotional rollercoaster}]). We got like five shirts I think, and they were all pretty good, and as we were leaving I noticed the Puma store and insisted that we go inside. So we shopped around a bit, and decided that maybe Austin needed a cool belt to go along with his awesome shirts. We looked at the belts, and there were two styles: a $28 model and an $18 model. Now personally, I think it's a little ridiculous to buy any belt for more than like $12, but that's beside the point. As we looked closer, we noticed that the two models were strikingly similar. Hmm... In fact, they were the exact same. The only difference was that on the $18 model the buckle was a bit more cloudy, like there were small scratches all over it in a semi-unifrom way that made it not reflect as well. It's hard to explain, but hopefully you sort of get the picture. But, the only way you can tell the difference when someone was wearing it is if you conciously looked for it, or you were six inches away from it with the $28 belt to compare it too. But, there are only a few reasons you stand (or kneel) six inches away from a belt for extended periods of times, and we won't divulge into them. For the sake of this argument, the two belt models are the same. We even asked a salesperson what the difference was, and they were just like, "Well, this one has a different color of fabric. This one's green and this one's gray." First of all, color variation should not be a cause for a 50% increase in price. Second of all, we pointed out to the guy that there are green and gray colors of the fabric in both of the models, so clearly he has no idea what he's talking about. Which means it was up to Detective Andrew to solve the case, which is obviously the next step in this process. So I sat down and thought about it for a while. This was when we were trying to move, mind you, so in order for our house to look better we had packed up every single book and put them in the attic. Except one, "Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs", which was in my mom's car at the time. Composed of a collection of stand-alone essays and being the only book in the house, I promptly read each chapter a good seven or eight times, which allows me to bring up any part of that book in discussion, which I have frequently done (as many of you know). Once again, it would help. One large theme in many of his essays is the definition of "cool". One such essay discusses how kid's cereal ads on on TV create a character that is unable to obtain the cereal, making it excluesive, and therefore cool because not everyone can have it. A large part of coolness is having something that no one else has, but having it look like anyone could have gotten it if they had enough fouresight. Exclusivity is a big part of coolness, and cereal advertisers know it. See: Trix Rabbit (on a side note, the article said that a 1997 poll revealed that 99% of all those asked wanted the Rabbit to finally be given the Trix), Sonny (who's coo-coo[?] for Cocoa Puffs), that dog-man from Cookie Crisps, and a lot of others but I haven't read the essay in a while and I'm doing this from memory (remember, I was thinking of writing this a month ago, when I could remember all of this). So back to the Puma belts. I am pretty sure that the store was artificially gnerating coolness, just like MTV used to do when it was hip. By making one belt $10 more expensive than another, Puma is creating exclusivity. The $28 belt is more expensive, ergo it is more exclusive, thereby cooler than the other one. I don't really know if this is true, but most of the things in Puma are pretty expensive, and so if you're going to buy a belt from there rather than somewhere else like at Macy's or JC Penny's or somewhere, there's a better chance that you are looking for fashion and are willing to spend the extra ten dollars to be cool. Although, common sense would dictate you buy the $18 one and say you bought the $28 one. It's not an airtight case, but that's OK with me. I think I really am onto something with this artifiially generated coolness, and I'm sure a while back I had more arguments for this, but I can't remember them at the moment. So anyways, onto my next point, which I will put in a new paragraph so you can conveniently find it.


Here we are. So next on the list is Disney, most notably the Disney Channel. I'm sure many of you have noticed at this point that Disney Channel does not show outside advertisements, only ads promoting their own shows, a stupid thing on "special kids" (like the girl who collected pez dispensers... ahaha my sister and I had a good laugh with that one), or other arms of the Disney franchise (usually Disneyland/ Disneyworld). But no revenue from outside advertisers, which I'm pretty sure is where most TV stations get most if not all of their revenue. Which means that Disney Channel pulls their revenue from somewhere else. I mean, I'm sure they get some money from the Disney stores, and some extra money from theme parks and stuff. But the more I thought about it (and the more links I clicked on after googling "how does the disney channel make money?" [apparently other people want to know too]), the more I realized that was in fact exactly how they did it. Disney Channel is, in the broad spectrum of things, one large advertisement for other parts of Disney. They thrust the Disney name into every household that holds a child aged 7-13, give or take a few years. They make kids want to have everything Disney, because that is what is cool. Let's see how they do it.


I would consider the Lizzie Mcguire series as the turning point of Disney Channel, from an under performing arm of the Disney Corporation to one of the most profitable parts of it (Disney Channel and products from it now account for like 45% of Disney profits or something). Most of us still remember the Disney Channel shows that were on back then, with classics like Smart Guy, Boy Meets World, and Recess (oh the good old days). But Lizzie McGuire seemed like a new show, one that tailored to the late middle school/ early high school girls and the boy problems they faced. Maybe shows on that channel had done that before, but they either weren't very good or didn't focus on the boy problems (oh Gordo... you lovable goofball). This show caught kid's attention due to its quirky, accident-prone lead character and her mildly funny (and even that is stretching that) animated inner-thoughts persona. It quickly became Disney Channel's highest rated show and spawned movies, books, dolls, cd's, manga (?!), McDonald toys, furniture themes, and various other things. All in all, it is estimated that this merchandise garnered Disney $100 million. Wow. And I'm pretty sure that's not including the $55.6 million grossed by The Lizzie McGuire movie. That's a lot of money for a show that had a minscule budget compared to most primetime shows. And therein lies a large part of Disney Channel's ability to suck up the cash like a vacuum. They sign obscure, unknown children into contracts that are almost carrer-binding. As it turns out, Hilary Duff produced her first cd with Disney Channel, but the contract did not stipulate that she needed to stay with them for cd's, or movies, and she quickly realized that she could make more money herself than she ever could with Disney. She took off to Hollywood Records, making three more cd's (two of which have gone platinum) and has made numerous movies, most of which have naught to do with Disney. And they do not get a cent of anything she makes. They have been sure not to do that again. With the huge numbers of Lizzie McGuire, Disney Channel realized that they had found the gem, and sought any way possible to continue the trend. It would appear the formula is: Sitcom with sporadic main character who is by no means perfect, but is still lovable (Raven, Zach and Cody, Alex [Witches From Waverly Place]), add in a stupid friend who never seems to understand what is going on and throws in spontaneous phrases (Arwen [Suite Life], Chelsea [That's So Raven], Oliver [Hannah Montana], Newt [Cory in the House], Ron [Kim Possible]), have another friend the main character is close to (Eddie [Raven], Lily [Hannah Montana], Miranda/Gordo [Lizzie McGuire]) , and use the same 50 or so plotlines over and over again in each show. What does that equal? Pure success.


It does not matter that I could write the script for every single one of these shows, it does not matter that I know how the episode is going to end three minutes into it, it does not matter that every single show is essentially the same show with a twist (live in a hotel room, have psychic powers, be a witch, be a pop star [actually, this can be said for almost every sitcom on television, and most dramas, they're all mostly the same formula just with a twist, and then it's up to the writers to distinguish the show from the others {the exception being Seinfeld, which had no twist, it just had the four characters and their lives (perhaps this was the twist?); thankfully the characters and the writing in that show allowed it to be so great]}). The only thing that matters is that children continue to watch the shows, and continue to tell their parents to take them to Disneyland and buy them Hannah Montana tickets. Even Disney's Head of Television Anne Sweeney knew this; according to Wikipedia, "Sweeney's successful strategy was to discover, nurture, and aggressively cross-promote teen music stars whose style and image were carefully targeted to the preteen segment of 10-year-olds in the period between childhood and adolescence." So... yea. Two-thirds of all American preteens regularly watch Hannah Montana, if that's any indication of how well they are doing. Disney Channel has discovered the secret formula to making money: Target the kids, not adults, and make them need the stuff; what parent is going to turn down their kids crying request for a Hannah Montana doll? The one thing that puzzled me for a long time was that Disney Channel just became a huge enterprise over the last few years, with the advent of Lizzie McGuire. Does that mean that before that they were just operating in the red, waiting for a hit? That seems like a really long-term investment, to have a channel lose money for twenty years before it starts turning profits. But then again, Disney Channel Original Series are a relatively modern thing. They always had a few, but much of the channel's programming throughout the 1980s and 1990s were reruns of previously-aired shows on ABC or other channels. There has always been the children's section, with the likes of Winnie the Pooh, Mickey Mouse, and Playhouse Disney. "Modern" Disney Channel Original Series probably started with around 2000, with Even Stevens. But before that, there was probably not a very large cost to make shows, as they were creating very few new ones, just reshowing episodes already creating by another arm of Disney. And even now, Disney Channel does not have a large operating cost, since they make these career contracts with future stars when they are very young, and the salary they receive is not high (at least much lower than a primetime actor). Disney then makes a profit on everything having to do with that person, be it movies, music, or TV shows (see: Raven, Miley Cyrus, Selena Gomez). These people are walking talking money-makers; whatever they make will make kids from around the country flock to get it. This has set up Disney Channel for years to come, and I don't see it ending anytime soon.




Ok, enough with Disney Channel. I skipped around a lot, and probably repeated myself frequently, but in my defense I did write that over a span of two days. So my other topic is much shorter; all I really wanted to say was that I am beginning to see major improvements with my culturing. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I've been embarking on a mission over the lsat year and a half or so to become more knowledgeable on the likes of music, books, television, movies, current events, technology, politics, and assorted others. This requires me devoting a rather large part of my life to finding new bands, watching TV (lots of TV...), reading a lot of magazines, and daily (or two or three times a day) checking various websites. I've been seeing major improvements with both my understanding of jokes and my ability to have a relevant topic from a TV show or book or article to whatever someone is saying to me. Which is probably why my stories take so long... It probably also helps that I like to talk. Anyways, we were playing Apples to Apples, and I was really proud because I knew most of the people that were on the cards, whether they were classic authors or famous historical figures or old movie stars. It's starting to pay off! Although, I'm pretty lacking in the book department. I really need to read Animal Farm, 1984, Catch-22, Fight Club, and other books that have been extremely influential in society today. I've been listening to some older stuff from Radiohead (stuff from "Hail to the Thief" and "OK Computer", so not really that old, but not their most recent album) and a lot of it has references to these books. Also, did you know that every title in Panic! at the Disco's album "A Fever you Can't Sweat Out" is a reference to Fight Club? I am really ahead of most people when it comes to television and music, but I lag far behind with books and movies. There are all these great movies I need to see, perhaps some of you guys would like to watch them with me second semester? And tell me any other books you think I need to read. With your help, we can make this blog more interactive! Anyways, that's about it. I think soon I'm going to put a list of my favorite albums of all time, but I don't want to yet because I need to listen to a lot of them more and there is still a lot of music I want to get and listen to. So, stay tuned for more sooner or later.