Mediaboss Marketing

When I look back at the decade, I think of one event that polarized the country across extreme political lines, bringing massive cultural implications and a profound sense of loss for those who ended up on the wrong side: the 2016 all-women reboot of the classic 80s comedy Ghostbusters. Ostensibly a modern vision of a beloved intellectual property (which is about the movie industrys only idea these days), the reboot, directed by Paul Feig and starring Kristin Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, and Leslie Jones was instead pilloried by adult virgins who decried the films focus on women, opposed to a rough n tumble group of male slobs just trying to have a good time without making any statements about feminism, or white supremacy, or abortion, or whatever.

Adding to the monumental nature of this, all the intransigent pushback happened before the movie even came out. Its trailer, released eight months before the Donald Trump was elected, collected 1.5 million downvotes and deeply telling YouTube comments such as Garbage movie that should not exist my wife, mother, sister, and daughter (three of which have not seen the originals) and Is this movie all about women and feminism only ? A clash might have easily emerged the put-upon progressive cultural property fighting against the regressive whims of a fascist-adjacent fanbase, as happened with Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Captain Marvel, and several other movies for children except for one inconvenient fact: Ghostbusters wasnt actually very good, adhering to the beats of the original too faithfully while somehow forgetting to include any jokes. By the time it was released, the momentum was gone; it was enough of a financial bomb to scuttle plans for a sequel.

However, the sustained anger proved one thing: There was organic interest in seeing a Ghostbusters reboot done right. Earlier in 2019, it was announced that Jason Reitman would be directing and co-writing a new film in the franchise, which would elide the fact that the 2016 movie ever happened. From the beginning, Reitman was clear about his desire to avoid futzing with the formula. This is gonna be a love letter to Ghostbusters... I want to make a movie for my fellow Ghostbusters fans, he said in a February podcast.

On the surface, Reitman might seem like an unconventional choice: Hes an alternately sentimental (Juno) and bracingly cynical (Young Adult, Thank You for Smoking, Tully) filmmaker whose best work skilfully demonstrates how we can never return to our past, and how the optimism of the young quickly curdles into adult bitterness, and thus fuck it. But most importantly, he is the son of original Ghostbusters director Ivan Reitman, and thus the right choice to steward an appropriately nostalgic movie, at least for all the angry adult babies. His movie is set up as a sequel to the 1984 original, with the grandchildren of original Ghostbuster Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis, who died in 2014) picking up his legacy to bust a new outcrop of ghosts. Original cast members, including Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Sigourney Weaver will also join, reprising their roles.

The emotional antecedents of the first trailer for Ghostbusters: Afterlife, which was released Monday morning, arent from the first Ghostbusters, but one of its spiritual sequels: Stranger Things, the Netflix series that packaged cultural yearning for 80s into original content about what it was like to live in them. This is partly because the new movie repurposes footage, costuming, and set design from the original Ghostbusters; its also because floppy-haired Stranger Things actor Finn Wolfhard is one of the new movies child leads. But above all, the trailer endeavors to create reverence for a very irreverent film, in which Dan Aykroyd gets his dick sucked by a ghost, among countless other indelible gags. Paul Rudd plays Wolfhards teacher, whose role in the trailer is literally to tell us about how cool the Ghostbusters were. The tone might seem necessarily pretentious and blowhardy that is, unless, you wanted to appease one of the people irate about how unfaithful the 2016 reboot appeared to be.

The new Ghostbusters cant pay homage to the original in a vacuum; thanks to the blowback against the 2016 reboot, all its creative choices seem like explicit political decisions. Sick of lady Ghostbusters? Well, heres two white guys in lead roles. Sick of new stuff? Well, heres a bunch of the old. Declaring that your movie will be a love letter, as Reitman did, suggests that the previous movie was made with no heart or respect. Saying that you intend to hand the movie to the fans, as Reitman also has, is pandering.

Nonetheless, this is just how a lot of shit works these days. As weve seen with Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Captain Marvel, and several other movies for the little humans in your life, a greater number of our political battles are fought online by cultural proxy. The clash of forward-thinking representative liberalism against retrograde, revanchist conservatism doesnt just happen at the polls, but at the box office, the Grammys, Comic Con, and high school newspapers. If this Ghostbusters fails financially, its not difficult to imagine the industry tugging the franchise back into the leftist future (perhaps a reboot thats half men, half women, and subtly pro-ghost), and if that movie fails then wed go back into the rightward past (all men, all adults, split between Biden and Trump, and explicitly pro-ghost genocide), and back and forth and back and forth until one side finally makes an un-critiqueable amount of money.

It feels metaphorically beneath us youre telling me I need to support or boycott fuckin Ghostbusters in order to declare myself politically? and yet unavoidably prevalent in modern culture. Back in 2016, even Trump weighed in on the ideological battle (Theyre making Ghostbusters with only women whats going on!?), during the campaign hed eventually win. I know where I stand, but I want to be clear: I wont be seeing the new Ghostbusters because it looks stupid, not politically stupid, just stupid-stupid. Its a franchise in which Dan Aykroyd got his dick sucked by a poltergeist. Its not that serious, and it doesnt need to be.

See the rest here:
'Ghostbusters' is the future of the culture wars - The Outline

As the 2010s come to a close, BoF reflects on how the past decade transformed the fashion industry and the culture at large. Explore our insightshere.

NEW YORK, United States In the mid-aughts, the Tyra Banks-created reality show Americas Next Top Model (ANTM) was arguably at the height of its cultural relevance in the United States. Viewers went crazy for Banks competition series, which pitted aspiring models against each other in the hopes of winning a contract meant to catapult them into the ranks of supermodel-dom.

None of the contestants on ANTM became bonafide supermodels, but that didnt stop the show from running for 24 seasons in the US, plus spinoffs around the world.

Looking back, much of what transpired on ANTM was problematic, to use 2019 parlance. In one 2005 episode, Banks, who also hosted the show, asked each hopeful to pose for a Got Milk advertisement, styled in hair and makeup representing ethnicities different from their own. The models faces were painted to look Native American, black, Korean and even eskimo the term the show used for the indigenous people of the Arctic.

At the time, a few blogs scolded the show a Slate columnist asked whether Banks was racist but the episode was hardly a topic of widespread public debate (the term "cultural appropriation" didn't catch on until around 2015, according to Google Trends search data). It would have been another story had it aired a decade later. Who can imagine the social media of the 2010s keeping quiet about blackface in a Got Milk ad?

It was in the 2010s that the culture wars really came to the internet, and the fashion industry has often found itself at the centre of the conflict. But in the past 10 years, the ways in which culture more specifically race, identity and politics informs fashion, and the ways consumers engage with fashion, has evolved.

The ways in which culture more specifically race, identity and politics informs fashion [...] has evolved.

Brands are being held directly accountable for their actions to a degree that would have been unthinkable even a decade ago.

Social media, of course, is the leading driver of this transformation. A new generation of consumers, more socially conscious than ever before, are now able to broadcast their reactions to everything from an advertising campaign to store window displays instantly via Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.

Before the conversation moved online, the average consumer only interacted with fashion via glossy print magazines or when products actually reached stores. Neither ad-dependent publishers nor retailers had much incentive to play up controversies.

For example, John Gallianos 1997 couture show for Christian Dior, which pilfered from Native American culture, was panned by fashion critics for its showmanship over wearability, but not for cultural insensitivity. The same cant be said for Victorias Secret's Native American headdresses worn in its 2012 runway show, Givenchys Chola Victorian collection from 2015, or Marc Jacobs cyberpunk dreadlocks worn on the runway by white models in 2016.

These collections may not have always been criticised by the press The Washington Posts Robin Givhan called the uproar over Jacobs dreadlocks ridiculous but they got enough of the public talking that actions were often taken. (Jacobs, for instance, issued an apology for lack of sensitivity over the issue after initially dismissing the controversy.) This year, Dior faced racism accusations after the brand debuted an advertising campaign for its Sauvage fragrance featuring a Native American dancer. The campaign was quickly dropped, though the fragrance is expected to be a top seller in the UK this holiday season.

It was only toward the end of the decade that online uproar began to actually affect the bottom line (and clearly, not in every case). For years, Victorias Secrets sales continued to climb, despite growing complaints over the way its bras and underwear were marketed. Dolce & Gabbanas business kept growing, even as its founders repeatedly made controversial comments.

That began changing in 2016, when a series of high-profile fashion brands came out with products that customers deemed to look like blackface, including the Moncler Malfi jacket in 2016, Pradamalia keychain in 2018, and this year, Katy Perry backless loafers and the now-infamous Gucci blackface sweater.

After the string of blackface-related incidents, "it was just like, things need to change now and in a drastic way," said Connie Wang, a senior features writer at Refinery29 and host of the publishers popular Style Out There YouTube series, which focuses on how style and culture intersect in different communities. That doesnt fly anymore.

Because it was... blackface specifically, I think it was just like, things need to change now and in a drastic way.

Gucci suffered tangibly for its transgressions. Parent company Kering noted in July that the companys star brand saw its first quarterly drop in North American sales since 2016, while Tribe Dynamics, an influencer marketing platform, noted that Guccis social media engagement fell so much as to knock it from its top spot compared to other luxury brands following the debacle.

The culture wars would come for lingerie behemoth Victorias Secret, too. Years of cultural faux pas and corporate insistence on an outdated beauty ideal alienated customers. Sales have dropped, and the brand cancelled its annual fashion show amid plummeting ratings.

But identity politics played only one part. Fashion and apparel brands, which once aspired to remain above the fray on issues that divided their customers, were forced to pick sides in the Trump era, which widened the gap between conservatives and liberals. The Grab Your Wallet campaign its moniker inspired by Trumps own rhetoric regarding sexual assault encourages consumers, by way of internet campaigning and hashtags, to boycott brands that do business with the American president or whose executives have donated to his campaign.

Among the apparel brands on the do-not-buy list: L.L. Bean, New Balance and the 70-plus labels operating under the umbrella of French luxury conglomerate LVMH. The recent meeting between CEO Bernard Arnault and Trump in Texas for the opening of a new Louis Vuitton handbag factory set off the campaigns alarm bells, prompting the house's womenswear designer, Nicolas Ghesquire to speak out.

Nike unafraid to take sides in the political culture war has so far benefited from its marketing campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick, the professional football player who kneeled during the National Anthem in protest over police brutality and other racial and social causes, much to the chagrin of President Donald Trump and many of his followers. Though Nike shares initially dipped after the boycott erupted, the advertisement led to a flurry of product sell-outs. Today, shares trade at a record high, and the brand is rumoured to be close to releasing a sneaker with Kaepernick.

From Nike to Gucci, if the culture wars have achieved one thing in fashion, it is that they have humanised brands.

Brands have waded into other hot-button issues. Gucci donated $500,000 to the 2018 March For Our Lives protest against gun violence, and Proenza Schouler sells T-shirts featuring an anti-gun graphic, donating proceeds to the Everytown gun safety organisation. Climate change is at the political forefront for brands like Collina Strada and Stella McCartney. Retailers like Gap Inc. and Target double down on their support for LGBTQIA+ citizens with policies that encourage shoppers to use whichever fitting rooms and restrooms correspond with their gender identity.

From Nike to Gucci, if the culture wars have achieved one thing in fashion, it is that they have humanised brands. But with the rise of watchdog-style call-out culture a la Diet Prada, some, like Wang, are sceptical that its possible for these conversations to be more nuanced and less polarising. The rise of "inclusivity marketing" can also read false and inauthentic if not executed with sensitivity.

However, others, like Hazel Clark, a professor of fashion studies at Parsons and author of "The fabric of Cultures: Fashion, Identity, and Globalisation," are more hopeful for the next decade of fashion discourse.

Brands are representing lifestyles, and lifestyles have values, thats whats being called into question when brands make mistakes, she said. Recognising and acknowledging those instances for privileged people around the world will certainly determine how we evolve as cultural beings.

Related Articles:

A Manifesto for Mindful Cross-Cultural Borrowing

Victoria's Secret Can Still Save Itself. Here's Where It Should Start.

The Cultural Appropriation Paradox

Visit link:
When the Culture Wars Came to Fashion | Intelligence, BoF Professional | BoF - The Business of Fashion

Our societys culture wars have a new addition: the battle between Americas livestock producers and supporters on one side, and the meatless meat industry and its fans on the other. The stage is set for intense competition in the American marketplace.

U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer, a Sand Hills rancher, has laid down a marker with her congressional proposal to designate formal definitions of beef and beef products, to underscore that artificial meat-like creations arent actual meat. That legislative struggle is part of a nationwide fight over food labeling, including at the Nebraska Legislature.

However the labeling fights finish up, the overall reality is that our culture is evolving. Many Americans are showing growing interest in artificial meat. Burger Kings Impossible Whopper is the best-known response to that market demand. At the same time, millions of Americans remain fervent fans of traditional beef and other meats. This split in food preferences appears set to remain a major cultural divide for the foreseeable future and is likely to grow even deeper.

A live-and-let-live attitude on this question seems the best course for consumers, with Americans respecting each others differing views. Individuals need to have sovereignty, after all, about their personal food choices.

Meanwhile, the competition between the traditional industry and the faux-meat sector seems likely to increase. Nebraska long dubbed the Beef State is home to an impressively robust beef sector, with a total economic impact estimated at $12.1 billion. In Iowa, the figure is $6.8 billion.

A recent agricultural report noted that Nebraskas 3rd Congressional District is home to more than 15,000 cattle operations with annual sales of $8.4 billion more than for any other House district except one in western Kansas. Many Nebraska ranching operations have roots that go back to the 1800s.

Northwest Iowa home to the states 4th Congressional District also scored high for cattle numbers. It ranks No. 6 among U.S. House districts, with more than 7,000 beef operations.

The Nebraska Cattlemen Foundation recently held its annual convention and trade show in Kearney. The event provided an occasion to appreciate notable examples of dedication, scientific know-how and stewardship. The foundation saluted:

Dr. Travis Mulliniks, a Nebraska expert in beef cattle nutrition and physiology, for his research promoting ecological stewardship, grazing animal efficiency and economic sustainability. Mulliniks is assistant professor in range cow production systems from the West Central Research and Extension Center in North Platte.

Dr. Jim MacDonald, for excellence in beef sector research and student instruction. MacDonald is professor of animal science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. MacDonald teaches classes in animal nutrition, management and systems analysis.

Homer and Darla Buell, owners of the Shovel Dot Ranch, founded in 1882, for their longstanding leadership in the beef industry at the local, national and international levels.

Nebraskas beef sector can indeed be proud of its quality, even as Americans disagree increasingly on their preferences when it comes to meat.

Read the original here:
Editorial: Competition is on the rise between meat and faux-meat - Omaha World-Herald

The major and big difference between the liberal/progressive national Democratic Party political views of those such as two of my college professor friends and those of people such as myself is that they are more concerned with and passionate about what many call the identity politics and cultural wars issues, while I am more concerned with and passionate about the economic, bread-and-butter and kitchen-table issues of economic and financial survival of the lower and middle classes to be able to pay their bills.

I have never had the heart to tell them that perhaps their priorities are colored by the fact that they both have combined yearly incomes with their wives of over $230,000 a year, while my wife and I fall under the official federal government category of near poverty (between 100%-125% of the official poverty line).

My well-to-do friends are more concerned with and passionate about issues such as racism, inclusion, the plight of minority groups, white nationalism and the plight of illegal immigrants. They can well afford to be.

But dont misinterpret what I am saying. I also do care a lot about the identity politics and culture wars issues. I just care more about people being able to survive economically and financially.

It is hard and painful for me to listen to many of my fellow national Democrats expressing more heartfelt and passionate concern for the wellbeing of illegal immigrants while expressing a lot less concern and passion about the wellbeing of our poor, our near-poor and our senior citizens who did all of the right things in life and now are struggling just to survive and to be able to pay their bills.

Stew EpsteinRochester, New York

Originally posted here:
Letters: Its hard to hear my fellow Democrats - The Durango Herald

One of the primary tensions fueling the Republican Party is the simultaneous loathing of and desire to be part of mainstream pop culture, which they fear has fallen permanently out of their grasp. The entertainment industry generally maintains liberal stances, at least in public, and regardless of how much power the right exercises over every other area of our lives, it will continue to do so. It is infuriating to conservatives that this one center of power remains off-limits and, as a result, a disproportionate amount of conservative resentment is directed at politically powerless but outspoken liberal celebrities and the media organizations that cover them.

This anxiety has become more acute since the election of Donald Trump, who is both more unpopular with celebrities and more personally concerned with the opinions of celebrities than any president since celebrities were invented. Trumps tendency to start public feuds with fashion writers and The View cohosts was a perfect match for a Republican base that cares way too much about what Kathy Griffin thinks, and they amplify each others worst instincts. When Trump was frozen out by his old celebrity pals in 2016, which was far too late it hurt him deeply, and his supporters felt the sting of rejection seeing formerly apolitical actors and musicians come out as fanatically anti-Trump.

Conservatives frenzied response to this increase in ill will has given us some of the most exhausting news stories in recent memory, from Griffins decapitation picture to Kanye West joining the MAGAverse to former Press Secretary Sean Spicer supposedly getting cheated out of a win on Dancing with the Stars. They are scrambling to find a way back into frivolous celebrity culture, and one strategy being rolled out is the creation of a parallel media infrastructure for entertainment news and gossip that can act as a safe space for easily offended conservatives.

POPlitics, a new venture launched last month by the right-wing youth-astroturfing firm Turning Point USA, emulates the tone and subject matter of Entertainment Tonight and Extra in daily five-minute Instagram videos. Host Alex Clark, formerly a Kentucky radio DJ, promises to deliver Pop Culture Without The Propaganda, but the result is as propaganda-free as anything else under the Turning Point USA umbrella. TPUSA brings in a lot of money ($11 million in fiscal year 2017) from anonymous billionaires who have an axe to grind, and the axe must be ground to keep the money flowing, and POPlitics uses cursory mentions of Taylor Swift and Justin Bieber to introduce a predetermined set of right-wing talking points.

The degree to which these are shoehorned into episodes (there are 26 as of this writing) varies. Episode 17 is mostly a rant about Chick-Fil-A stabbing their base in the back by withdrawing donations from anti-LGBTQ charities, which is not a pop culture topic. Episode 19 consists of a list of bad things Hunter Biden did, a story about Jussie Smollett, and then a two-minute lecture about how Ariana Grande fans should prepare to go bankrupt and die of diseases if they vote for Bernie Sanders. In Episode 11, Clark interviews Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw about some things he probably doesnt get asked a lot...OR EVER, which means asking him if he likes dancing, which he does not, and what he is watching on Netflix, which is nothing, and then turning it over to him for a three-minute monologue on veterans issues. Despite being edited to feel like a regular celebrity gossip show, POPlitics still feels like a lecture. Also, if anyone were ever to recommend it out loud, everyone would just think they said politics while hiccuping.

The liberal bias of award shows holds another prominent place on the conservative list of grievances, roughly on par with poor people getting health care and gender-neutral bathrooms. Trump, who has tweeted angrily about the low, low ratings of the Academy Awards every year since 2013, has drawn even more attention to the scourge of liberal people receiving little statues by responding in kind to any celebrity who dares denounce him during an acceptance speech. Fox News opinion hosts cover every award show for the sole purpose of getting viewers hopping mad about the culture wars. Sometimes pundits contrast the wealth and status of the attendees with the plight of the average Joe, like when Tucker Carlson called the 2017 Emmys an expression of the contempt America's ruling class has for the rest of the country. Other times they criticize the concept of award shows for being self-congratulatory, such as Sean Hannity calling the 2018 Oscars the pinnacle of Hollywood self-praise. This opposition to wealth, ostentatiousness, and self-praise is highly selective; pro athletes and liberal actresses always get an earful, but there are exceptions for the president and Kanye West now that he stumps for the right.

This is the context in which the Fox News crew has established The Patriot Awards, so-dubbed the Oscars of what really matters, broadcast live from St. Petersburg, Florida for the first time last month on the FOX Nation streaming service. What really matters, in this case, is the flag, the anthem, troops, and cops. The idea of a conservative awards show has been bouncing around the MAGAsphere for a while in a rant about the 2017 Emmy Awards, Sean Hannity asked By the way, when are we going to have an awards show for carpenters and doctors that save lives and nurses and people that do plumbing and heating and make our lives better every day, and truck drivers that bring us all the food and materials we need? Do they ever get an award show, ever?

This is the kind of idea that works best on a bumper sticker. The Patriot Awards were hosted in their first year by Fox News weekend co-anchor Pete Hegseth, who sported an unnerving grin and a suit lined with the American flag. Fox anchors were the star talent here, and they did not shy away from promoting their own shows while introducing award recipients. The audience didnt seem to mind; a puff piece on the Fox News website quoted an attendee as saying I just want to see the Fox hosts in person because I see them every day and they're my family. Hegseths opening monologue was fairly on-the-nose about the purpose of the event. Hollywood has their award shows, right? Self-important types giving awards to other self-important types. The audience booed. Big trophies given to actors who play heroes on TV. Tonight we honor the real heroes. We must pause to consider that that Hegseth has spent the last year successfully lobbying the president to pardon soldiers credibly accused of war crimes to whom he has also referred to as heroes. He really, really loves people who commit war crimes.

Before the awards began, the audience was forced to stand for the National Anthem, a gesture that has taken on extra political significance for conservatives since Colin Kaepernick first took a knee in 2016. The anthem was performed by Kaya Jones, an occasional Fox News guest whose claim to fame is that she was briefly a backup singer in the Pussycat Dolls but left before they recorded their 2005 debut album. Jones resurfaced in 2016 as a popular promoter of Trump on Twitter and Instagram and became a fixture on Hannity soon after. She has benefited immensely from low standards necessitated by the deficit of conservative celebrities under 65, and particularly of young female musicians. It will probably not surprise you that her anthem rendition was off-key. Performances of such a caliber are forgivable at, say, minor league baseball games, or if you are Fergie, but less so at highly produced events where the song is specifically shoehorned in to make a point.

Physically, the Patriot Award is a flimsy-looking metal flag on a stand. What it means is harder to gauge. The categories (Patriot Award for Service to Veterans, Most Valuable Patriot, Patriot Award for First Responders, Patriot Award for the Unsung Hero, The Most Patriotic Sportsman and the Ultimate Patriot Award) are vague, and the criteria are rather broad. Award recipient Sgt. Rob Jones, a double-amputee veteran who runs marathons for charity, received a Patriot Award; this is the sort of respectable endeavor one would expect to be rewarded here, though it should be noted that Jones is currently running for Congress as a Republican.

Other recipients have not sacrificed quite so much, like a 14-year-old who went around his neighborhood pestering homeowners to fly the American flag, or a minor league hockey coach who told players to stand for the anthem or get the fuck out in a viral video. An award was presented to Mission BBQ, a Maryland-based Goldman Sachs-backed military-themed fast-casual restaurant chain founded on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 by two non-veterans that forces customers to stand for the anthem every day at noon. The focus on performative flag-and-anthem worship in an event purportedly more serious and meaningful than the Oscars and the Emmys confirms what Hegseth implies with his opening monologue that the Patriot Awards were never meant to be the high-minded and depoliticized affair they are in the ad copy. It is, after all, a Fox News broadcast.

The difference between liberal pop culture broadcasts and their explicitly conservative equivalents isnt in the amount of political content or the level of smugness or how wealthy the hosts are or how often they pander to the audience with applause lines its who the applause lines are meant for. When creating parallel versions of Entertainment Tonight and the Academy Awards, conservatives opt not only to keep in all the worst excesses of these formats, but to intensify them. The clear implication is that right-wing antipathy toward mainstream culture stems mostly from the feeling that they, and not the big Other, should be the ones relentlessly pandered to.

More:
The right's attempt at pop culture is hilariously wrong - The Outline