Big Secret Pizza Party

Jason Das, illustrator extraordinaire

hi.  for those of you that actually visit this blog directly, you may have noticed that I have a new (poorly placed, too big) header image.  

The illustration is by my friend Jason Das, whose work I love.  It's actually how we met - I cyberstalked him because I liked his drawings, and then we became friends.   Jason runs an incredibly comprehensive website called SuperVegan, and every time we hang out I manage to awkwardly eat some kind of non-vegan food in front of him (last time, it was s'mores - marshmallows and chocolate). 

You can see all his work on his site, GasWaterNothing, or his Flickr,  but I thought I would share a few of my favorites right here. 

First, the full illustration from up top:

(this one is also one of my favorite places in NY, so...)


reminds me of home, even though it's really cape cod. RI, cape cod, same thing.

and here's Jason, drawing people on the subway, which he does a lot.  I've never noticed anyone drawing me on the subway, but apparently it happens to other, more interesting-looking people.  (I like the guy next to him in this picture, he's straight out of an 80's movie where they do the "bustling city life / apathy" montage. He's the Ben Stein of subway cars.)



Hopefully Jason will start selling his work somewhere soon, but I'm sure he takes commissions for now.

Domino Magazine closes, signifies worstatimes fast approaching

( what is worstatimes? )

OH man. We all knew things were bad for the magazine industry.  Titles are closing down everyday, and issues are looking incredibly slim. 

But Domino?  I'm pretty devastated.  and so are most of the design bloggers out there, I imagine.  I don't think I've ever seen a magazine get as much unabashed love and devotion as Domino did. 

a gawker commenter laments

However, as some are pointing out, Domino was a magazine about "shopping for your home" -- the sister publication to the incredibly successful Lucky.  And since no one is shopping right now, especially for high end furniture, it was bound to suffer.  And while I think that's sort of true - maybe people don't want to torture themselves with stuff they can't have? - I don't think it's the whole story.

If you're a blog junkie, then you probably know that there are tons of design / interior decorating  blogs.  Some bloggers have even been acknowledged in Domino (and gone on to write for them), and collectively, their sites probably reach at least as many people as the magazine did each month.   And there is so much content out there on these blogs - some of which comes from Domino magazine - that it might have contributed to a drop in subscriptions.   I actually dropped mine, because I knew that a day after the magazine came out, most of the stories would be up on their site anyway, and scans from the print edition would be all over the design blogs. 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not blaming design blogs for the downfall of traditional shelter mags like House & Garden, and now Domino.    I think we all know that this is just the way things are going -- people are no longer going to pay to read things, or look at pretty pictures since there are so many places to look at them for free (with some ads on the side).  

But on the flip side, the very talented editorial staff of Domino, who created amazing features each and every month, shouldn't be sacrificed simply because paid print publications are no longer a viable medium.   (my pre-husband got me the Domino Book of Decorating for Christmas, which is incredible).

To me, the easy answer (duh - I know)  is to focus on Domino's website.  They've done a ton of work to make it a real tool for those interested in design on any level - they recently added a feature called My decoFile, which allows you to save images, information, and other clipped items from the site - sort of like a digital moodboard.

I haven't heard any news about whether Dominomag.com will be closing as well, but if they aren't, there a few things they should do immediately if they want to save it:

1) A serious overhaul of their brand integration offerings and programs:  As of right now, brand presence on the site is minimal - a few small units on each page, nothing innovative at all.   If they want to monetize content on their site, they need to give brands more ways to integrate, beyond standard units.

2) Monetization plans for exclusive content: Since most of their photos, lists and stories are clipped and re-blogged by many design bloggers (who then earn money by running ads on their own blogs), I think they need to figure out a way to monetize their best content - like a full photoshoot, or hi-res images - making design blogs almost affiliates for their content.  Not sure what the answer is here, but the fact that design blogs run on beautiful images, and most of them don't have the capacity to produce photoshoots themselves, I think it's something to think about.

3) Package their (incredibly vocal) audience better:  In terms of brands they do partner with (which really only get exposure via ads in the magazine, and little advertorial features about parties, etc), I think they need to branch out.   Brands who advertise with them are mainly furniture/design brands, with some beauty and fashion thrown in.  Their audience of bloggers, influencers and generally enthusiastic and proactive women is pretty desirable for most advertisers - in fact, on most of the brands I've worked on, it's always these type of people that we want to reach.  

I think one of the best things about print magazines closing is that the tyranny of circulation will finally end - no longer will titles be priced, and subsequently placed in media plans purely based on  numbers and bare-bones facts about people who (supposedly) subscribe to them.   Technically, titles like Marie Claire and Domino might have exactly the same reader demographic, but judging from the way that Domino content tears through the blogosphere like wildfire, something tells me brands would be getting way more bang for their buck with that audience. 

I'm still sad that monthly tea / couch / cat sessions with Domino are ending, but I can easily switch it up to make it tea / couch / cat / laptop*. 

*like I don't do that every day.  and I also read magazines while looking things up online, so it's not much of a stretch for me.

UPDATE:  guess I'm not the only one...commenter from Design Sponge:

"It was either cancel Domino or Lucky, and I thought, well, I can always get my design fix from design sponge!"

Joan Jett, circa 1977

I just thought this was such a cool picture, and the fact that someone out there is called Lisa Devil Worship is amazing.

On The Phone With Lisa 1977
This is a photo from that amazing session at the Tropicana Motel. Joan has been tossed out of her mom’s house and here she is on the phone with her stunning girlfriend Lisa, who everyone called Lisa Devil Worship. Incredible how I can remember such details 30 years later.

via Preik

media multitasking: which way do you lean?

I saw this new data yesterday from IMMI showing that females 15-48 spend more time simultaneously watching TV and using an Internet-connected computer than males do.  (only about 2 minutes more on average, but hey).    Also, as women approach their 40's, their rate of simultaneous TV/Internet use goes up, while that of men goes down. 

The conclusion IMMI drew was that "women appear more inclined to multi-task than men, particularly when balancing their personal and professional lives during the heaviest child-rearing years."   Which makes sense -- moms probably only get a short amount of personal time, and they have to cram everything into it. 

This got me thinking about how I consume media, and the research that still needs to be done, especially on viewing habits for online TV sites like Hulu.   Usually, when I watch stuff on Hulu, which I do frequently, I watch it fullscreen on my desktop computer, sometimes with my laptop in my lap, sometimes not.  So it's a 'lean-back' experience for me, rather than 'lean-forward'. 

What I wonder is how other people watch TV online, and whether or not it is moving more toward a traditional TV-like experience (on the couch) rather than when online video first emerged ( at your desk/laptop).  

Judging from some of the new in-stream ads I see on Hulu, they think I'm sitting at my desk, or somewhere where I can reach my computer and interact with the ads - for example, there was a car ad on there awhile ago that wanted me to click to check out it's features.   Obviously, that wasn't worth hauling myself off the couch, and even if I were sitting near the computer, I'm not sure I would have prolonged the break in my viewing experience by messing around with a virtual car.  

When Hulu first came out, people wondered whether or not audiences would watch longer-format programming online. They also assumed 'online' meant at your desk, or on a laptop.    For me, and I think for other people, it doesn't necessarily mean that.  Given that Netflix has enabled people to play movies instantly online,  there must be people out there that are watching TV/movies online, but reverting back to the lean-back experience of traditional TV watching.  Because who could sit through an entire movie at a desk, or with a hot laptop on their lap?

You might say this doesn't really matter, as long as people are watching it, but it matters a lot when brands are trying to figure out how to create engaging advertising around online long form content*.  To me, the interactive interstitials on Hulu are ridiculous, because I'm not sitting near the computer.  What if that's the way more people are starting to watch content on Hulu, and ComedyCentral.com, and other sites?  

Since it's important that we figure it out, let's do a survey! Yay, surveys.

Online Surveys & Market Research

Incidentally, whenever I read magazines at home, I always have my laptop next to me, so I can reference (read: buy) things I see in the magazine.   Does anyone else do that?  Probably not.

*I hate using the word 'content', but really, it's the shortest way to say movies-and-tv-shows-and-other-stuff online.

UPDATE!
I guess I'm not the only one who does this: 

everything communicates: employee training materials that don't induce vomiting

The year is 1989.  It is the first day of your summer job at Wendy's, and you kind of want to kill yourself.  Your parents made you get a job over the summer, and you chose working at Wendy's over being a camp counselor because at least you wouldn't have to get up at the crack of dawn. 

You and some kid from your gym class find yourselves in the break room at the local Wendy's, waiting for instruction.  The manager then tells you that you'll be watching a short staff training video, and she pops it into the VCR.

and then the magic happens.

A rapper in a be-sparkled Wendy's polo shirt and gold mirrored sunglasses takes you through the official Wendy's steps to getting "Grill Skillz" ( original song also featured at the end of the video).     How awesome is that?  Instead of making a hideously boring and soul crushing training video, Wendy's tried to make mundane work processes entertaining for their employees. 

 It seems like a small gesture, but it probably made a big difference in the attitude of new employees toward Wendy's, whether they laughed at the video, or genuinely thought it was cool (I'm not sure how ironic teenagers were in the late 80's).   And as we all know, in a customer-service based company, you're only as good as your worst employee, so making an effort to put some fun into a job that's not inherently fun is a great idea. 

Also,  the Grill Skillz rapper reminded us of someone we know and love....... Naked's own Heron Preston! 

Grill Skillz guy:

HP:

 

eh?? eh???

homages, fan fiction and theft: how acknowledging influences changes perception

I'm not sure if that is the right title for this, but I've been thinking for a long time about the differences between how creations that borrow or acknowledge other works are accepted and criticized in popular culture.    In movies, homages to past films that have influenced the director are frequent, and seen as a warm way for a filmmaker to acknowledge his or her influences.  The new films created are rarely described as having "lifted" ideas or materials, and you wouldn't really label them as fan fiction either, even though sometimes, the characters are exactly the same as in an original work.    

For example, Noah Baumbach and Wes Anderson frequently reference older films (mostly French New Wave) within their films. Sometimes it's just a small nod using a shot or a line, and sometimes it's a much larger reference -- in Baumbach's The Squid and the Whale, the character of Frank is heavily based on Laurent from the Louis Malle film Murmur of the Heart.  In fact, an entire scene - the one where Frank looks in the mirror and talks to himself - is a duplicate of a scene from Murmur of the Heart.   

   

In Wes Anderson's Rushmore, the visual of Max driving the little racecar references a scene in Francois Truffaut's Day for Night, where Truffaut's favorite actor (and mine!) Jean Pierre Leaud drives a similar car. 

     

:( I couldn't find the exact shot from Day for Night, but this is the scene

Baumbach, Anderson, and most film directors are very open about their influences, and people who love movies enjoy seeing these little references -- like a secret handshake among cinema afficionados.  I'm not sure, but maybe it's because they are so open about their influences, and acknowledge them wholly with clear reference,  that people don't criticize them for using material that isn't entirely original.  

The idea of visual plagiarism is certainly prevalent in photography and illustration , but the acceptance and appreciation of these homages among the film community indicates that it's an honor to be referenced, rather than cause for legal action.     Look at films like Clueless, and 10 Things I Hate About You - they're simply updated versions of classic literature, and no one seems to have a problem with that. 

So why is the written word so different?

When we're talking about books and written work, suddenly things get nasty -- homages can  become intellectual property theft, and references become plagiarism.   There are lots of authors that do acknowledge past influences within their own works gracefully and in a way that is acceptable to the literary community -- for example, borrowing names of places or people is incredibly common, and done with a wink to the like-minded reader.   I love it when I see these -- like references to Philip Pullman works in Michael Chabon's books,  or the myriad of incredible, amazingly esoteric and well-placed literary references within A Series of Unfortunate Events.   

But it seems that authors who borrow beyond proper nouns face harsh criticism for not coming up with original ideas.  A lot of people accuse JK Rowling of this -- many of the elements in Harry Potter's world come from existing fantasy worlds created by authors like JRR Tolkein, sometimes with slight tweaks, sometimes not.   But to the fair, most books in the fantasy genre contain similar elements -- it just seems that people are more critical of similarities and borrowed ideas here.    Of course, most of these elements were originally borrowed from mythology, so who's to say who invented what?

    

LOTR Blackriders Darkriders, or nazgûl (thanks Finn!)  and Harry Potter's Dementors. 
Both gross, both hooded, both to be avoided.

In  Michael Chabon's (excellent - go buy it) book of critical essays, Maps and Legends, he shares his literary influences in great detail, something that many writers avoid, so as not to be accused of plagiarism (case in point, Twilight author Stephenie Meyer's denial of ever having seen Buffy the Vampire Slayer. As. if.)  

this book has the most amazing jacket ever.  it's beautiful.

In fact, Chabon maintains that his influences continue to define his work:

"The first thing I ever wrote—when I worked on something for a sustained period when I was about 10 or 11 years old—was a Sherlock Holmes story in the voice of Dr. Watson. I came to realize that everything I do is fan fiction. I think everything that we all do, all fiction, is fan fiction in that you are always inspired to write by things that you love. So much of writing for me is about finding a way to convey my own love of other writers’ work."

I think that this is the huge point of difference here -- when a writer, or filmmaker, or artist of any kind is open about their influences, their references are seen as homages.  When they bury them or brush them off,  things take a negative turn.  

Not to pick on JK Rowling (and I do love Harry Potter), but it seems that if she'd just acknowledged the influence of LOTR and other books, like the Chronicles of Narnia, on her writing, people would have dropped the issue, and appreciated the revival of concepts and ideas they loved.

In an interview, Rowling said, "I didn’t read “The Hobbit” until I was in my 20s-much later. I’d started “Harry Potter” by then, and someone gave it to me, and I thought, Yeah, I really should read this, because people kept saying, “You’ve read ‘The Hobbit,’ obviously?” And I was saying, “Um, no.” So I thought, Well, I will, and I did, and it was wonderful." 

Rowling also maintains she's never read the entire Narnia series, but has been quoted as having a strong reaction to a plot element that occurs very (very) late in the series:    “There comes a point where Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes interested in lipstick. She’s become irreligious basically because she found sex,” Rowling says. “I have a big problem with that.”    (loads more info on this for literary conspiracy theorists here).

This denial of influence - which anyone who has ever created anything, written or otherwise, knows to be an essential element to the emergence of new ideas - seems to be a key element in how references to other works are perceived, and therefore on how the new work is perceived.    If  Noah Baumbach had denied that he'd ever seen any French New Wave films, he'd have been ripped to shreds, and any slight similarities in his works would have been heavily criticized.   Since it's completely obvious that most writers are first passionate readers,  I think that the literary world here should take a cue from filmmakers and be more open about their influences, since astute readers will always be able to discern them anyway.

Another industry that deals with the issue of acknowledging influence is the fashion industry -- for example, why is it ok for new designers to be heavily influenced by 1970's Yves St. Laurent,  but it's atrocious when Forever 21 and H&M replicate runway designs?  The main issue here seems to be same-season profit, and the laws concerning intellectual property in the fashion industry are quickly evolving to protect originators of a design (even if they themselves were influenced by someone else).   

Again, the simple act of acknowledging one's influences seems to allow many fashion designers, like Proenza Schouler, to revisit designs seen before, and to great acclaim. 

 

Proenza Schouler 2008,  and their influence: Yves St Laurent (who was influenced by real safari-goers)

One of the things that I think is really fantastic about bloggers, in any genre, is their innate instinct to acknowledge, almost to a fault, the people and works that have influenced them.  Crediting peers builds a feeling of community, shows appreciation for their contributions, and also shows how the effect that their thoughts have had on yours.   

In this little marketing/planning/strategy blog community that I'm so lucky to be a part of - when I actually write anything ;) - everyone knows that since thinking IS your product, it would be in the worst possible taste to replicate anything without credit.   Although you can see right through what I like to call "calculated references" - meaning acknowleding stuff people have written/said purely for the purpose of ass-kissing and personal advancement,  I think that on the whole, our predispostiion to acknowledge our influences removes potential scepticism or criticism when exploring new territory, and makes this often snarky little industry a friendlier and more accepting place.

our pre-holiday trip: highlights part 2

ok - where was I?  right - Inverness...

On our day in Inverness, we discovered a trashy British soap opera called Holly Oaks, which we quickly became addicted to. (note: you might be wondering why we watched so much TV on our vacation.  Well, the answer to that is that it was cold and rainy, and after walking around for a few hours you really just wanted to go inside and take a nap.)    I guess most British soaps are about people who are sort of working class, versus our American soaps where no one really works, unless they are doctors, and everyone is rich and lives in a mansion, except the token poor people.  There were plots on Holly Oaks that centered around a guy that worked at a chip stand, and a girl bringing a statutory rape charge against some dude she banged.  Pretty realistic -- no one posessed by the devil, or brainwashing people (both happened on Days of Our Lives, and we won't even talk about Passions.  That shit was bananas.)

 December 17th - 19th  Loch Ness, Scottish Highlands, and Edinburgh   
We rented a car and drive, at our leisure, from Inverness down to Edinburgh / Glasgow.  By we, I mean Will, because he did all the wrong side driving, as I do not have a driver's license.  He did a great job, but it was weird. 

So after the adventure of picking up and driving the car for the first time, we headed to Loch Ness, and boarded a tour boat to search for Nessie.  It was windy, but not raining (yay!), and Loch Ness is beautiful!  We didn't see Nessie, but we saw how the way the wind blows over the very dark water could make any drunk Scot think he saw the slimy hump of the Loch Ness Monster. 


After we got back from the boat trip, we went to the Nessie visitors center, where we watched a crappy movie about Nessie narrated by a dude in a kilt, which featured an epic battle between a Swedish science guy who wanted to like, drag the lake for Nessie, and a local wizard (yes!!!) who came to 'protect the creature'.  The wizard arrived in a limousine.

We then drove down along Loch Ness and the highlands, which mostly looked like this:


and we saw a Red Deer!  at first I thought it was a Reindeer, but I guess those don't live in Scotland anymore, but it was awesome.  We named him Snacky, because he was sort of hanging out near this mobile snack stand, the only thing for miles besides sheep and Highland cows.  The guy who ran the stand said he kept deer food for him, but tourists feed him bad stuff.  Like sausages. 



We continued on down the only road there was in that part of Scotland, stopping at some woolen mill on the side of the road.  While there we met Hamish, a Highland Cow, and we fed him some veg.  and a whole banana. 



We drove on to Edinburgh that night, after going to Stirling Castle (where we discovered Hamish's fame was widespread due to a line of calendars with his face on them).  The next day we went to Edinburgh Castle, and walked around the city.  It was beautiful, and they had this cool holiday street fair (which they also had in Glasgow, I guess it's a thing).  



December 19th (night) - 22nd:  Glasgow   
I'm not gonna lie - our first impression of Glasgow was not good.  Our hotel was on this weird street that seemed to have all of the bars and clubs in the city on it, in addition to a casino.  It was within walking distance to the club where we were going to see 4 Idlewild shows, one each night (the reason for the whole trip), so that was good.  It also turned out to be near a very pretty shopping area, but we didn't figure that out until the next evening.  Also, it was during this part of the trip that I got incredibly sick with a cold, which is odd, because I never get sick.   That didn't help things.   So until about 6 pm on the 20th, we thought Glasgow was a serious shithole. 

But we were wrong!  The next day, it was sunny out, by some miracle, and we went to the west end of Glasgow.  The botanical gardens were absolutely gorgeous, and the university area was really pretty.  We went to the Kelvingrove Museum, which was nice, and Will ate a "coronation chicken" sandwich which he deemed incredible.



The Idlewild shows varied from awesome to annoying, depending on which album they were doing.  There were loads of rowdy Scottish dudes who wanted them to play their headbangery stuff, which is not our favorite, and apparently show etiquette is different there, because the rowdy Scots yelled everything from song requests to inquiries about Christmas wishes at the lead singer during pauses.   I'm glad we went, and Will had an awesome time, but I am pretty psyched that I will (hopefully) never again hear "ROSEABILITY!!!!!!!!!"  or "You should have married ME, Roddy!!!!" bellowed in a Scottish brogue.  They took footage of the shows for a DVD, which Will and I will certainly appear on at some point, because they shot everyone filing in and out of the shows each night. 

Here is a picture that someone took at one of the shows (not us):


December 22nd:  home!!
We flew from Glasgow to London, waited in the airport for awhile, and then flew from London back to NY.  I watched Stepbrothers, which was dumbish, and some show based on the childhood of Simon Doonan, creative director of Barney's, which was awesome.   We were pretty glad to get home, and I can't even express to you how happy I was to take my effing raincoat and wellies off.  I haven't worn them since.

our pre-holiday trip: highlights part 1

Hi everyone!  After what feels like a million years, I'm back in NY and going to work tomorrow.   I'm starting to feel sort of useless - Will's sister and I were talking and saying that we're now just these weird people who don't work, and hang out all day reading, shopping, taking walks, playing games, and eating.  Like socialites, except for the eating.  

We left on December 10th to go on a trip to England and Scotland, and we came back on December 22nd.  In between, we did lots of stuff, so I'll just give you the highlights here.  I hope you find it enjoyable, and not like looking at someone's boring vacation pictures, which is what it sort of felt like when we showed our families every picture we'd taken. 

December 11th & 12th: London
We didn't stay in London very long, which was good, because it's kind of just like New York and didn't really feel like a vacation.  We stayed in Holland Park, and went to Charles Dickens' house, some record shops, a huge-ass National Geographic store that just opened on Regent Street (which I really liked), and the Harry Potter platform at Kings Cross, which we were just passing by, and did NOT make a special trip for.

We also spent some time looking for this issue of NME, which was harder to find than you'd think:

We first discovered a TV show we've grown to love since then, called Never Mind the Buzzcocks, a music quiz show, in our London hotel room.  It is awesome, and I will figure out a way to watch it here.  I had a crush on the presenter, but then learned he's gay, and was very dejected.  You should watch some, it's great.

December 12th -14th: Oxford
My pre-husband Will's brother met us in London, and together we went to Oxford, where he lives with his lovely French wife,  who is absolutely sick of eating parsnips.  We'd never been there, and it it amazingly beautiful, and I would live there in a minute.   The first day we were there it poured, so we just bummed around and went to some pubs and stuff. 

We did go to the Turf, where apparently Bill Clinton used to not get high.

It was here that we were introduced to The Mighty Boosh, a bizarre tv show, which I immediately hated and Will really liked.  I think it mainly appeals to dudes
.

The next day was nicer, and we got to do some sightseeing.  We walked around the meadow at ChristChurch college, and through the town and stuff.

My favorite place that we went in Oxford was their Museum of Natural History.  It was all in one huge room, and it just felt really nice to be in there. 

December 15th - 16th: Inverness, Scotland
We took a train called the Caledonian sleeper from London to Inverness. It was really cool, and although we didn't get much sleep, we had fun.  We only stayed the one day in Inverness, as it was pretty small, and we wanted to go meet Nessie.

Part 2 to come!