it’s all related to how stans debate their faves’ album sales now instead of whether the music is any f***ing good! american taste has gone full consumerist
One could excuse Klein's desire for strategy if his tactics were actually insightful, good or effective. It was not difficult to see how the right-wing were weaponising Kirk's death as a sociopolitical power grab, even at the early juncture in which Klein decided to publish his essay. His piece did not provide some aisle-healing balm, all it did was validate the right wing's efforts. Throughout the interview with Coates, Klein undulated between wanting to extend kindness to his opponents' vies for authoritarianism, sportingly wanting to learn from them, trying to figure out how his side "wins" almost exclusively through the thought process of capitulation and then finally, questioning what his place in the movement was at all. It was all an embarrassing cauldron of conflicting intentions that made his attempts at "strategy", quite frankly, fucking incoherent. He doesn’t even know where he stands. He spent an hour trying to build strategies on a foundation of sand and didn't have the wherewithal to let Coates' moral clarity and grace help him reflect on what he'd done. Even if you look from a purely tactical standpoint, I don't think he sees how unproductive his essay, and the wider implications of the position it articulates, was. The conversation is infuriating to witness because he's ultimately so bad at the thing he wants to be good at.
I just keep thinking about how stans essentially consider themselves investors in the brands, so they feel they have to participate in the labour of marketing themselves, but also be cheering on when there is corporate strategy behind it.
I mentioned in a post a while back that there's too much awareness of the zero-sum game of culture these days which means these types of collaborations are seen as wins that stave off the inevitable calls of irrelevance for their faves (using their vernacular, as I despise the concept of artists being 'irrelevant' just because they're not playing the game). So they get invested, even if they don't intend to.
I always go back to the Swifties celebrating her breaking some record for money made at specific concerts: that's all money she's extracted from the audience, from THEM and yet they cheered it on and said "we did this!!!" -- it's partially why I consider so much of this a commercial cult, ultimately. Because for so many participants it *is* about contributing more, spending more, spreading the doctrine aided by other corporations... Depressing as fuck.
As someoen who works in marketing I really felt this. It’s not even “what do I think” it’s “what do I look like I think” or “who do I look like I think like”. And as a “Strategist” whatever that means I’m tired of having to excavate insights about a polarised climate only to come back and sell people products that they can unite and commune over? It’s so backwards but here we are. I also think it’s incredibly mainstream now because of personal brand culture and brands trying to be people and people trying to be brands, we see ourselves in the marketing suite chair when we obsess over these corporate artworks, we applaud how marketers exploit our attention because influence is currency to us.
This is beautifully put. I’m saying this as someone who also does brand work, in addition to my journalism career, but do you ever feel morally compromised working within this field? I wonder if there’s possibility of change form within here or it’s a macro problem
I’ve try to compartmentalise so those moral dilemmas don’t hit as hard but it can be difficult. It’s 100% a macro issue but it’s case by case too some companies or teams rather leave room for you to prioritise the truth but ultimately we’re accountable to the bottom line.
I think the phenomena you’ve named is more the result of social media (IG) turning everyone into advertisers. Even ppl who aren’t monetizing their pages post as if they have something to promote (OOTD, product recs and links). If everyone is an influencer, everyone has to care about marketing.
I believe it is because a very few people own the means of production, including cultural production, through conglomerates that own the nyt, record labels, ad-revenue-based social media, clothing manufacturers and pseudointellectuals delivering talking points in exchange for cash & proximity to power, & therefore have the vast resources to flood our environment and every collective interaction with absolute noisy mediocre garbage, in whatever way that keeps us from connecting to each other through the noise to organize a different arrangement. This isnt a matter of exhorting people to have better taste but the material conditions--of getting people to feel empowered to turn towards each other and away from centralized noise.
this is so interesting and well put. in some ways, I think we have overly decentralized discursive power and consolidated, like u said, the means of production/capitol (tech platforms). can we still, though, within this context, try our best to empower one another to turn towards each other? I go back and forth on if substack is an alternative or extension of these dynamics.
we're having meaningful complex conversations here, but there is a lot of the other stuff, too. In fact it's incentivized.
Its interesting, I do think the decentralization is an illusion. I am an old millenial and the early internet, despite starting as a military technology, was incredibly diverse and weird, and now we are herded into these highly-controlled suburban-mall-like lots, disciplined by the algo, with substack the latest version of this -- it will lure people in who will create incredible art, conversation, and communities, then raze them down in the inevitable enshittification. So its both alt/extension, as a way to attempt to co-opt any resistance back into the system? Its another situation where we don't own the means of production--substack (meta/google/etc) can change or erase whatever we build whenever they want, we are peasants on feudal intellectual property. You can see in real time the US government strong arming tiktok, which is now partially owned by the guy who owns Oracle--the same old military-industrial complex. But there are absolutely real connection and conversations happenning despite the noise! You are also right, the incentives when we are exhausted and financially precarious, is to comply to the algorithm/what editors want/what advertisers will pay for bc we have a system where we don't have access to material basics. The hustle is real.
I think your field of cultural criticism has a pretty long, deep history of scrutinizing mass media amid authoritarianism and capitalism (Adorno & rest of Frankfurt school, Barthes,etc) that still is relevant today, and especially music criticism culture (punk! underground hip hop! zines!). I think gen z is the first group to actually start decreasing their online time. Major parts of the internet are rapidly deteriorating, but people are also building out "indy internet." Even if we have to sell out sometimes to eat, creating independent communities and art together, especially IRL, is a way to divest attention away from the bullshit, compare notes, ask each other about other ways to be. Maybe it will get co-opted yet again, but it keeps the flame alive so we don't get spiritually suffocated and teach kids there's way better options than slop & jean ads.
Such a thought-provoking piece. Something you note but seem to dismiss: I suspect that by examining the mechanics of how audience attention is being manipulated by marketing, many people are trying to better understand how their attention is being seized and used (for profit, for power, etc.). Understanding the underlying marketing schematics can actually lead to stronger media literacy, consumer awareness, and a better understanding of the difference between art and commerce. When you're aware you're being fed something you didn't necessarily order, you can better decide for yourself whether this is something you actually like or if you're just consuming it because it's there.
No denying that some of this translates into stanning, or even conspiratorial thinking where there's a *they* trying to harness your money, attention, time, body (well, yeah, often there is! But obviously that line of thinking can take us dangerous places). But I'd argue that better knowledge of how these systems work - how and why they activate us cognitively, how they're constructed by external forces, understanding everything from timing to funding to platform choice - helps us become more thoughtful, deliberate consumers and citizens.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I agree and don't dismiss this, I just think discourse/awareness of algorithm's, marketing techniques, the PR industrial complex is different than these marketing deep dives. The POV of a lot of these is, "isn't cool that X brand did this," rather than, "this is how marketing/algorithms are manipulating," which seems less trendy and popular, sadly.
Maybe it’s in part an “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” thing, too. I see this with my students— many of them are knowledgeable for their age about the back end of what they see, but feel powerless to do anything about the Content Barrage, and so express cynicism about it even as they consume it. Or maybe that’s just being 20, always?
Reminds me of the futile “vote with your dollar” campaigns for or against whatever big box store offended people. Why would we ‘vote with our dollar’ when we should be able to vote for politicians willing to take these corporations to task? American culture has papered over democracy with consumerism. It is the only mode of thought in which most people have learned to excel.
I think you are right on here - that this is an attentional thing. What was interesting about Ezra in this conversation was the almost “magician explaining his magic trick” aspect of both saying why he says what he says while also doing the very thing he was describing.
In concrete terms I totally understand why he communicates the way he does and he clearly feels he has a responsibility to do so, but the open inauthenticity is interesting.
This was really good. Information isn't even power anymore. We're just being content bombed and overwhelmed. Soon they'll be flashing ads in our eye balls and we won't need devices.
Glad you tried out something different. Keep going.
What a great connection! Honestly this is the perfect anti-LinkedIn Thesis in so many ways.
Like so much in our current state of the world, truth is relative to how “popular” it is in that specific moment. Sometimes what we desire the subject to be is more important so we’ll completely construct that narrative to fit a truth that works for us.
Klein also did a podcast with Trevor Noah recently, which I enjoyed because it felt good to hear. Their whole conversation felt like strategy on what to do next or how to “win”. It was strategy!
Hi saw your TikTok video on this and decided to check out the post. I find it so fascinating that in both the digital and real worlds (if you consider them distinct realms) those with influence are ones with nifty 5 step frameworks, those who want their thought processes to be reusable and duplicated (these are the strategists). Whereas those who do, deliver and write are the ones with inherent insight on how things actually are and are able to take action are overlooked whether writers or laborers.
it’s all related to how stans debate their faves’ album sales now instead of whether the music is any f***ing good! american taste has gone full consumerist
agreeeeeed ! my prayer is that Life of a Showgirl being a critical flop but commercial success will break this fever .... but I doubt it!
One could excuse Klein's desire for strategy if his tactics were actually insightful, good or effective. It was not difficult to see how the right-wing were weaponising Kirk's death as a sociopolitical power grab, even at the early juncture in which Klein decided to publish his essay. His piece did not provide some aisle-healing balm, all it did was validate the right wing's efforts. Throughout the interview with Coates, Klein undulated between wanting to extend kindness to his opponents' vies for authoritarianism, sportingly wanting to learn from them, trying to figure out how his side "wins" almost exclusively through the thought process of capitulation and then finally, questioning what his place in the movement was at all. It was all an embarrassing cauldron of conflicting intentions that made his attempts at "strategy", quite frankly, fucking incoherent. He doesn’t even know where he stands. He spent an hour trying to build strategies on a foundation of sand and didn't have the wherewithal to let Coates' moral clarity and grace help him reflect on what he'd done. Even if you look from a purely tactical standpoint, I don't think he sees how unproductive his essay, and the wider implications of the position it articulates, was. The conversation is infuriating to witness because he's ultimately so bad at the thing he wants to be good at.
So well put!!!
I just keep thinking about how stans essentially consider themselves investors in the brands, so they feel they have to participate in the labour of marketing themselves, but also be cheering on when there is corporate strategy behind it.
I mentioned in a post a while back that there's too much awareness of the zero-sum game of culture these days which means these types of collaborations are seen as wins that stave off the inevitable calls of irrelevance for their faves (using their vernacular, as I despise the concept of artists being 'irrelevant' just because they're not playing the game). So they get invested, even if they don't intend to.
I always go back to the Swifties celebrating her breaking some record for money made at specific concerts: that's all money she's extracted from the audience, from THEM and yet they cheered it on and said "we did this!!!" -- it's partially why I consider so much of this a commercial cult, ultimately. Because for so many participants it *is* about contributing more, spending more, spreading the doctrine aided by other corporations... Depressing as fuck.
As someoen who works in marketing I really felt this. It’s not even “what do I think” it’s “what do I look like I think” or “who do I look like I think like”. And as a “Strategist” whatever that means I’m tired of having to excavate insights about a polarised climate only to come back and sell people products that they can unite and commune over? It’s so backwards but here we are. I also think it’s incredibly mainstream now because of personal brand culture and brands trying to be people and people trying to be brands, we see ourselves in the marketing suite chair when we obsess over these corporate artworks, we applaud how marketers exploit our attention because influence is currency to us.
This is beautifully put. I’m saying this as someone who also does brand work, in addition to my journalism career, but do you ever feel morally compromised working within this field? I wonder if there’s possibility of change form within here or it’s a macro problem
I’ve try to compartmentalise so those moral dilemmas don’t hit as hard but it can be difficult. It’s 100% a macro issue but it’s case by case too some companies or teams rather leave room for you to prioritise the truth but ultimately we’re accountable to the bottom line.
I think the phenomena you’ve named is more the result of social media (IG) turning everyone into advertisers. Even ppl who aren’t monetizing their pages post as if they have something to promote (OOTD, product recs and links). If everyone is an influencer, everyone has to care about marketing.
I believe it is because a very few people own the means of production, including cultural production, through conglomerates that own the nyt, record labels, ad-revenue-based social media, clothing manufacturers and pseudointellectuals delivering talking points in exchange for cash & proximity to power, & therefore have the vast resources to flood our environment and every collective interaction with absolute noisy mediocre garbage, in whatever way that keeps us from connecting to each other through the noise to organize a different arrangement. This isnt a matter of exhorting people to have better taste but the material conditions--of getting people to feel empowered to turn towards each other and away from centralized noise.
this is so interesting and well put. in some ways, I think we have overly decentralized discursive power and consolidated, like u said, the means of production/capitol (tech platforms). can we still, though, within this context, try our best to empower one another to turn towards each other? I go back and forth on if substack is an alternative or extension of these dynamics.
we're having meaningful complex conversations here, but there is a lot of the other stuff, too. In fact it's incentivized.
Its interesting, I do think the decentralization is an illusion. I am an old millenial and the early internet, despite starting as a military technology, was incredibly diverse and weird, and now we are herded into these highly-controlled suburban-mall-like lots, disciplined by the algo, with substack the latest version of this -- it will lure people in who will create incredible art, conversation, and communities, then raze them down in the inevitable enshittification. So its both alt/extension, as a way to attempt to co-opt any resistance back into the system? Its another situation where we don't own the means of production--substack (meta/google/etc) can change or erase whatever we build whenever they want, we are peasants on feudal intellectual property. You can see in real time the US government strong arming tiktok, which is now partially owned by the guy who owns Oracle--the same old military-industrial complex. But there are absolutely real connection and conversations happenning despite the noise! You are also right, the incentives when we are exhausted and financially precarious, is to comply to the algorithm/what editors want/what advertisers will pay for bc we have a system where we don't have access to material basics. The hustle is real.
I think your field of cultural criticism has a pretty long, deep history of scrutinizing mass media amid authoritarianism and capitalism (Adorno & rest of Frankfurt school, Barthes,etc) that still is relevant today, and especially music criticism culture (punk! underground hip hop! zines!). I think gen z is the first group to actually start decreasing their online time. Major parts of the internet are rapidly deteriorating, but people are also building out "indy internet." Even if we have to sell out sometimes to eat, creating independent communities and art together, especially IRL, is a way to divest attention away from the bullshit, compare notes, ask each other about other ways to be. Maybe it will get co-opted yet again, but it keeps the flame alive so we don't get spiritually suffocated and teach kids there's way better options than slop & jean ads.
Such a thought-provoking piece. Something you note but seem to dismiss: I suspect that by examining the mechanics of how audience attention is being manipulated by marketing, many people are trying to better understand how their attention is being seized and used (for profit, for power, etc.). Understanding the underlying marketing schematics can actually lead to stronger media literacy, consumer awareness, and a better understanding of the difference between art and commerce. When you're aware you're being fed something you didn't necessarily order, you can better decide for yourself whether this is something you actually like or if you're just consuming it because it's there.
No denying that some of this translates into stanning, or even conspiratorial thinking where there's a *they* trying to harness your money, attention, time, body (well, yeah, often there is! But obviously that line of thinking can take us dangerous places). But I'd argue that better knowledge of how these systems work - how and why they activate us cognitively, how they're constructed by external forces, understanding everything from timing to funding to platform choice - helps us become more thoughtful, deliberate consumers and citizens.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I agree and don't dismiss this, I just think discourse/awareness of algorithm's, marketing techniques, the PR industrial complex is different than these marketing deep dives. The POV of a lot of these is, "isn't cool that X brand did this," rather than, "this is how marketing/algorithms are manipulating," which seems less trendy and popular, sadly.
Maybe it’s in part an “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” thing, too. I see this with my students— many of them are knowledgeable for their age about the back end of what they see, but feel powerless to do anything about the Content Barrage, and so express cynicism about it even as they consume it. Or maybe that’s just being 20, always?
Well said. 👏👏
Reminds me of the futile “vote with your dollar” campaigns for or against whatever big box store offended people. Why would we ‘vote with our dollar’ when we should be able to vote for politicians willing to take these corporations to task? American culture has papered over democracy with consumerism. It is the only mode of thought in which most people have learned to excel.
I think you are right on here - that this is an attentional thing. What was interesting about Ezra in this conversation was the almost “magician explaining his magic trick” aspect of both saying why he says what he says while also doing the very thing he was describing.
In concrete terms I totally understand why he communicates the way he does and he clearly feels he has a responsibility to do so, but the open inauthenticity is interesting.
A reader made a comment on a recent article I wrote about these attention dynamics that I thought put it well - it’s scarcity dynamics applied to the attentional landscape: https://open.substack.com/pub/theslowpanic/p/your-attention-is-all-they-need
This was really good. Information isn't even power anymore. We're just being content bombed and overwhelmed. Soon they'll be flashing ads in our eye balls and we won't need devices.
Glad you tried out something different. Keep going.
What a great connection! Honestly this is the perfect anti-LinkedIn Thesis in so many ways.
Like so much in our current state of the world, truth is relative to how “popular” it is in that specific moment. Sometimes what we desire the subject to be is more important so we’ll completely construct that narrative to fit a truth that works for us.
Klein also did a podcast with Trevor Noah recently, which I enjoyed because it felt good to hear. Their whole conversation felt like strategy on what to do next or how to “win”. It was strategy!
When everyone either is an influencer or wants to be one, bowing at the altar of marketing is a natural progression.
Hi saw your TikTok video on this and decided to check out the post. I find it so fascinating that in both the digital and real worlds (if you consider them distinct realms) those with influence are ones with nifty 5 step frameworks, those who want their thought processes to be reusable and duplicated (these are the strategists). Whereas those who do, deliver and write are the ones with inherent insight on how things actually are and are able to take action are overlooked whether writers or laborers.
Ugh yes. It creeps me out that we became so obsessed with the marketing and not being exploited.
Great analogy to drive the point home: “Klein was talking about marketing; Coates, the world.” 💯
I’m sat!