As one who marketeers, I’d agree that some of the bunch are smarmy money and influence pedlers. But some of us tell people about good things in an honest way and make inroads by rooting the message in something truthful and real. The problem with micromessaging as I see it in my work day to day is that the vast majority of people get so overwhelmed by the info flying at them, or so overwhelmed at what they feel is pressure to make “the right” choice, that they give up and end up choosing whatever they can find, or they ask a community of family/ friends/ co workers… and for them they’re almost un-marketeered to in the end. I’m supposed to approach that as a challenge to overcome I think, to keep my clubhouse pass, but actually I like a little rebellion and like to whisper “it’s all a lie” randomly to shoppers. I think we see it – all the subtle marketing – the problem is that it all takes up so much of the air around us there’s not much alternative awareness unless we find it and share it ourselves.

As for the OLPC, I got to play with one last week and almost dropped it as it’s super top heavy. The corporate telecoms company rep showing it off (did I know he had the first Blackberry in the UK and the first iphone and the first blah blah blah…) told me that it won’t do that in the developing world because they’ll PUT THEM ON STUFF. Hmmm. On stuff. How will it get onto the stuff? And where will this stuff sit? And if the only other way to make it not topple is to flip the screen down into tablet mode how do you then type? And we weren’t to touh the wireless antennae – they’re really breakable. Oscar would have had it in bits in about the length of a radio ad.

As for the need to be politic to succeed – I’ll relate a story I grew up with. My mom was the first woman to work in the research lab at a big sugar refinery in her hometown. She was highly qualified, keen to work, had great references, and the man who eventually hired her told her she was his last choice. He’d never hired a woman and he wasn’t convinced they had the mental stamina to be researchers or weren’t just working to find a good husband. You’ve met my mom. She’s fierce when needs be. But she smiled, took the job and peed in the mens room for a year until they assigned the women (!) a room of their own. Her view – she could have stayed outside the building and screamed at the walls, or gone inside and made the changes by hook, crook and guile. Diplomatic yes. Effective, absolutely.

Elise

You’re right – the ability to understand important messages in a climate of manipulation is an increasing vital skill. I think you’d find this series on CBC to be of interest: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/spincycles/index.html – they explore the spin cycle of traditional media. An excellent series. Or consider Stuart Ewen’s “PR: A social history of spin”. Simply, the manipulation of messages has a long history…and if history provides any insights into our future, as we become more distributed, so do the “creation of mirrors”.

A quick example. Over the last few months, I’ve been getting several PR messages a day…stating “we have a new product” or “your readers would like to…” or whatever. We are now in an age of micromarketing. Bloggers are approached by marketing firms in the same manner that press releases used to be issued to newspapers/radio/TV. My question: Does the increased distributed nature of marketing make us more or less immune to false messages? When a large percentage of a distributed informal information ecology is saying “think this…vote for her/him…have this opinion”, is that message more powerful than seeing it on TV or hearing it on the radio? i.e. are we better off to be distributed in purity of message? or centralized? or does it become the old telephone game where messages are obscured as they move through the chain?

You’ve highlighted an important point here Dave…

George

Then he told us about how that sequence was filmed. Almost shamefully he seemed to admit that it was all staged in an aquarium. They put the partially cleaned caracass in for a few minutes, shoot a few frames, then remove it and flens some more meat off. They repeated that until they got to the bones. They weren’t really in the river. The vicious fishes really weren’t so ferocious.

So my advice would be to show more nature films at an early age. And then show the kids how they are really made, foley artists and all.

“We are constantly bombarded by subtle media signs that are trying to use our desire for belonging to get us to buy things, to get us to do things… If we aren’t careful, we do things to belong.”

Absolutely right. And ‘staying on message’ is a huge part of this. To get us to say the same things, to believe the same things (and hence, to buy the same things, vote for the same things). Which ultimately… hurt us.

The only way to survive is to get to the root of the rot. To define clearly and for yourself what counts as ‘getting ahead’. Are the rewards they offer you enough to convince you to mouth words you know are false? Is the threat of loss of livelihood sufficient to force you to comply to the corporate myth?

OPLC serves a noble cause, but it is not benign. It is an instantiation of a certain myth – one that might be titled “we produce, you consume” – but which is supported by media manipulation. We never read of other mini-computer initiatives. We never see an explanation of why places like MIT goe their own way – on MediaMOO, on OPLC, on Sakai, on DSpace – instead of supporting the international community that *already* exists. We don’t hear why UNESCO supports (Sun’s project) Curriki, instead of Wikiversity. We don’t read about open source mobile phone hardware and peer-to-peer communications networks. We see no discussion of why ‘personal pages’ (ie., pages that are non-commercial) are subjected to blanked filtering, as a class. Because “we produce, you consume”. And the wealth continues to flow in one direction.

When you start ‘staying on message’ to appease your employers and your funders, you begin to support this message, this one-way flow of wealth, this undermining of your your own independence, your own livlihood, our own freedom.

You can’t make me ‘stay on message’ because it costs too much. The minute somebody realizes they can take away your freedom – they do. And nothing you believe or own is yours again.