co-opting 'culture jamming'

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

ok, on ilm we've been through the ecc/negativland musical culture jamming stuff (which i think is generally rather lame, but theres that thread for that), whereas, when it comes to ads and stuff i do have more time for it. but what about when the corporate world co-opts culture jamming itself? ie, i read some time last year about how nike was culture jamming itself (in australia i think), and also some car company in california was defacing its own billboards, all to appeal to 'the slacker generation' i guess

so, what do you think?

― gareth, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"do you SEE!!!" is what i say

― mark s, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Or they can make their adds more offensive leaving it open for attack/publicity. Radio station in Toronto (Mojo radio, radio for men) made their ads more well known by being overtly sexist. Till feminists lacking a sense of humour or foresight started defacing them, one in particular made me crack up all the time on College, some red paint splatered on it with a message about "Womyn do not degrade yourself to this level" or something corny like that. Wish I could recall what it said exactly. All that stuck in my mind is how that defacing made it all the more appealing to the young male demographic they were after.
Now culture jamming types dont speak for me and tend to piss me off. Maybe thats just an east coast hatred of wimpy Vancouverites defacing my town just because Adbusters made a few good pieces of art ten years ago.

― Mr Noodles, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

whatevah happened to the guerilla girls?

― mark s, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Whatever happened to Slade?

― N., Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

They went to law school.

― Ronan, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

How SLC Punk of them.

― Mr Noodles, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

IBM recently got smacked for stenciling pictographic ads on Chicago sidewalks that were I think meant to imitate some sort of mysterious grass-rootsy movement (cf "No more prisons"): the city reminded them that no, just because you're a corporation does not mean that you can graffiti things. Unfortunately I think they were just fined for cleanup costs and lo and behold we all remember the ad campaign, so no loss for IBM.

― nabisco%%, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

hahahahah.

― Sterling Clover, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The campaign was "Peace, Love and Linux" and the graffitti were three symbols: a peace sign, a heart, and a penguin. I was a tech contractor at IBM's ad agency at the time and I seem to remember that the campaign was unsuccessful, because it was so out of IBM's character that it came across as sarcastic.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Lupo!!

― mark s, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Everything gets co-opted. It used to take years, then months. Nowadays anything new lasts as a rebellious form for about four minutes before it's assimilated.

― Martin Skidmore, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

When my father finally kicks the bucket Im grabbing his IBM songbook no matter what the fuck his will says, provided he didnt loose it already.

― Mr Noodles, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

That's the one, Tracer. I'm really not sure why they thought they could just go around painting city sidewalks without anyone's approval.

― nabisco%%, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I think it was meant to be biodegradeable, ahem.

How do billposters get away with it, anyway?

― Graham, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

They don't. They are hunted down and shot.

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

There is one thing the corporate world cannot co-opt: it's the concept of a paradigm shift. A real one; information that goes against what they are, what they stand for. It was the goal of that original culture jamming stuff, right?

Now it is admitted this strategy being known lost it's bite so, the paradigm shift must take new form. For here and now I don't know, here's an idea on top of my head: less bells n'whistles, just entirely cover-up the ads with posters promoting simple living by giving tips on practical daily actions + links to local participatory economy groups. How about this? un-co-optable desne? Eaven better, make the city to pay for the installation and maintenance. More politically mature constructive answer please!

― The Hegemon, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Ladies and Gentlemen....the truth.com! Government mandated culture jamming.

― J Blount, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

the truth.com's existence is all about tobacco.
It's understandable the states have chosen this strategy since people who get sick because of tobacco are a problem to them. Banning tobacco would be smarter tho.
It's not too hard to imagine countries like Nowray or Sweden choosing a similar strategy after some studies, deciding that it's logic to encourage simple living as a way to increase the quality of life of their citizens (and to their surprise finding it is a better way to stimulate the economy instead of tweaking it artificially to prevent recession etc). Government gradually implementing a decentralization of power to the general benefits of their citizens,to me it's the next best thing after anarchy.
I get only a small percentage of my income is from localpareconlike initiatives, I wish it could get bigger so I could reprazent at least at 50%.

― The Hegemon, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The Truth.com is all about a negotiated settlement between Big Government and Big Tobacco - since it cost Big Tobacco millions, Big Government can claim victory, and since this victory comes in the form of culture jamming Big Tobacco doesn't have to worry about it having any actual effect on the culture (or sales).

― J Blount, Tuesday, 28 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

haha in the case of the 'peace wuv linux' thing - it angered a lot of people here in boston incl. me not because of sarcasm but of sheer overt hypocrisy - ie "we are uber-big business and we love the idea of free software [which is a very real thing that many ppl work very hard on] so we will exploit this concept which carries a lot of positive connotations along with it to make a profit" - and not only that, but make our ad campaign invasive to your public space - sidewalks and so on. when corporations culture-jam themselves it feels like exploitation - like they are taking something away from people, thereby forcing them to take things into our own hands yet again (culture- jamming their culture-jamming - it all comes back to the pie pie theory!!)

more on this when i am not drunk

― geeta, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

pie pie is all => also it has a much bettah name than "culture jamming" which is the worst name for ANYTHING EVER!!

― mark s, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

if you're going to "jam" culture by all rights it should end up tastier than it was previously. (Spaceballs: "we've been... jammed!" "tastes like... raspberry!")

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

the electoral commission is rocking banksy with their stencil thing.

dont know if this is the same thing though...

on the whole this phenomenon is pretty funny...

dont mess with the MAN.

― ambrose, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Advertisers sell products by linking them to ideas (just vague ones for now: freedom, individuality, sexiness, power, etc. etc. etc.). Their product's identification with an idea will seem more meaningful if someone appears to actively oppose those ideas. So advertisers deface their own ads to tell us that the ads are being taken seriously. I bet every hip advertising exec in America reads Adbusters religiously.

― fritz, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

yr right fritz - the majority of adbusters subscribers have addresses on madison avenue (nyc ad agency central)

― geeta, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

!!DO YOU SEE!!

― (or wz that a joke, geeta?), Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The interesting thing about TheTruth is that while it's semi-directly tobacco-industry-funded its primary argument is not that you shouldn't smoke because smoking is bad for you, but that you shouldn't smoke because smoking means siding with the Big Scary Evil Lying Tobacco Industry. Leaving aside the paradox that if you believe what the commercials are saying then you should go out and smoke, the ads would appear to have caught up with the massive triumphs of style-over-sense that revolve around smoking: i.e. people smoke in lifestyle/identity senses desite knowing it's bad for you, thus they ignore the bad for you part and essentially tell kids that smokers are corporate tools. Paradox again: if you believe them then you are, too. Mainly they just underestimate the ability of kids to figure out exactly who is telling them what and why.

― nabisco%%, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Daily Show had reverse-psychology PSA on the other night: men in business suits talking about how cool getting high was. final card reads "from the association of uncool businessmen 'against' drugs" - the quotes making the psychology TRIPLE back on itself - afterwards Jon says to the presenter: "so, you figure these ads'll be effective?" steven colbert: "oh no jon, they won't be effective AT ALL" and he winks really big. "so, uh, you mean they WILL be effective?" "no, they WON'T be," says Colbert, winking again. "are you coming on to me Steven." "no Jon, not at ALL." WINK

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.