Do you know what I think? I think that people are so obsessed with the idea of “ordinary people” desperately wanting to Interact With Brands, that they don’t see that the logic of digital is not biased towards engagement. It’s a constant flow: visual, extremely fast, ruthless, volatile, hyperactive – and p2p. There’s where you find your bedspread for example, thrown between actresses, mega-cities, pop songs. All appropriated from other people, based on quick, aesthetic decisions. And then before you blink, it’s gone, lost in the flow.

(image flow from northia.tumblr.com)

1. A man explains how he put all his possessions online and sold basically everything, in order to live a “minimalist, digitally-centered life”. (Watch »)

Also, he seems terribly smug about it, probably in part due to the “Oooh! You are CRAZY!” tone of the presenter, who apparently came straight from year 2000 (“You’ve digitized ALL your music…?”). What this man’s done, obviously, is to take his bachelor’s pad to its extreme consequence, where he erases everything in it that can signify anything about him. Women (and gay men, see Queer Eye for the Straight Guy) are traditionally thought to be the family specialists in the symbolic language of consumer goods – knowing and appreciating what a pair of shoes or yellow walls say about you, compared to the traditional male stereotype who “don’t know what they want”, or “don’t care about how it/he looks”. Everytime someone gets attention in media for leading an ascetic, digital life, it’s a man – usually of the badly dressed, geeky internet start-up entrepreneur variety.

I’d say that escape from this difficulty is a part of the temptation to sell all your shirts (including, yes, the “Unidentified Robot t-shirt”).

But don’t think this is an easy way out, oh you worn-out ironic t-shirt wearers who roam the internet. Because if my research isn’t completely wrong, girls and better dressed men than you are quickly moving symbolic value online too, and you’ll be lost again. Look at this, for example:

2. An NYT article about Polyvore (read »)

It’s a year old, but it’s a good read. Polyvore, the site where you can appropriate designer clothes and other items by putting them together in image sets, has two million users, by the way, did you know? (In related news, Polyvore wants to make fashion more data-driven, which is yet another opportunity to ponder if one should do an Apple 1984-style uprising against the tyranny of the crowd, or try to find another level of creativity on top of the giant pile of user data. Let’s go with the latter, shall we.)

3. Janice Denegri-Knott on how we act on Ebay, among other things (read »)

I couldn’t find an original article that didn’t require uni access, but this second-hand account will do fine as an introduction to Denegri-Knott’s research on digital virtual consumption.

A fashion blogger’s product wish-list for Fall 2010

Any item seen and desired, but not yet decided on or affordable can be “placed” in this personalized area (the wishlist), achieving a liminal status where they are not yet owned by the would-be buyer, but neither are they not owned. Their digital virtual image remains in the “possession” of the individual providing pleasure as an item that when acquired will fulfill his/her wishes of the consumer. Although much focus has been on the economics of the “long tail” that such functions promote (where consumers consider goods well outside the most popular that physical retailers stock and display), the implications of such practices are that consumers are invited to seek out and want more and more obscure commodities and to promote these to each other as objects of desire.

From Janice Denegri-Knott & Mike Molesworth’s 2010 article “Concepts and practices of digital virtual consumption”.

OK, so I’m trying to make some kind of order in my mind, the first little step in writing my Master’s thesis. I just feel the need to get everything one can do online to engage with a brand down on one place, in a neat table. Just a fraction of these interest me right now, but it’s still good to see it all together. What glaringly obvious actions have I forgotten? (I will fill in more examples where possible, when I get around to it.)

(Yes, two examples from the world of Barbie. There could be more. I got a bit sucked in to the Barbie universe the other day, although it was all in the name of research so it wasn’t wasting time really, and discovered that both Barb and Ken are on Foursquare, too. He’s apparently rambling about all over America reminiscing (a little bit creepily) about when they were dating. Get over it, Ken.)

Oh! Apparently, it’s Christmas. I’ve been working so much I’m caught a bit off guard here (Christmas? Now? In mid-November?), but anyway, it’s that time of the year when you might feel the urge to read up on stuff. Not me, no. I’ve, frivolously, bought this pile of cheap French nonsense. Which I will happily peruse accompanied by a sickly sweet non-alcoholic eggnog like the ones my father used to make me (Brilliant stuff. Just like the early beginnings of a sponge cake, in a glass.) and some deeply unsophisticated music, to compensate mentally for a semester of late night afterwork master course reading.

But YOU, my darlings, I’ve got some grand plans for you. You’ll spend your holidays reading clever stuff on communication, digital culture and futurology, going back to work enlightened and inspired. Someone has to do it. Why not start here:

1. A classic article
Grant McCracken: Culture and Consumption. A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods
Grant McCracken’s 1986 article on how cultural meaning moves in a consumer society. One of the best accounts I’ve ever read on how products, signs and style get their meaning, and why and how that meaning changes.

Read (PDF)

2. An interesting blog
Top Trends
Slightly silly name for a good blog by futurist Richard Watson, a man who advises organisations such as IBM, Coca-Cola, Nestlé and McDonald’s on the future. Which means that what he says is probably good enough for you, as well. Judging from his blog, mr W also seem to have the advantage of being a consultant on the future who’s actually reflective and, yes, rather nice. Instead of a raving mad technophile dressed like some horrible little man from your technical support department.

Read

3. Heavy stuff in a small book
Adam Arvidsson: Brands. Meaning and Value in Media Culture
I’m not a great fan of critical theory in general, but frankly often find its self-righteous accusations a bit of a detour. But if you as an advertising professional can stand a bit of Capitalist Conspiracy and a galloping sense of being Part of the Problem while reading, don’t miss out on Arvidsson’s clear and sharp history of adland trends and rhetoric, and his analysis of how brand value is created in the digital age. Very clever.

Buy from Amazon