Take your brand to work day, revisions, and stockpiling
Hi! #Tbt is now on a new provider, Substack rather than Tinyletter. It was surprisingly easy. Not much should have changed. I’m going to try using horizontal rules to separate bananas now.
It is ok to revise. Revising is good. This first banana was an Instagram post by my friend Kyle Brooks, aka @blackcattips.
Kyle writes, “I had a painting that just didn't work. It's ok to say that . I decided to revise it. I like it better now. I feel better. ---- Here is Teddy Tips and the new painting. Using babies for scale is completely acceptable. I would sell you the painting but I won't sell teddy boy.”
Stockpiling. With Marie Kondo’s show recently released on Netflix, there are an overabundance of takes of all kinds about it and her practice and philosophy of organization and spirituality. A couple of takes that I’ve appreciated:
One from literary editor Amanda Annis, who writes in reaction to those who criticize Kondo for encouraging people to throw away without much thought of where the stuff is landing:
“Kondo is not about throwing things away; she's setting people up for a model of (more) ethical consumption. FIRST purge the mass of meaningless objects acquired through conspicuous consumption under captialism. THEN stop buying shit that leaves you feeling empty….Joan Chittister calls this the "poverty of plenty."“
Another relating to the same question, from Tracy Wilson:
“Marie Kondo does not make anybody throw anything away. Not even books. It's right there on the TV show* that it's not about making yourself get rid of stuff, it's about confirming how you feel about the things you already have….*Which is a show in which a Japanese woman unapologetically speaks Japanese and uses a translator, even though it's made for a nation that's like "SPEAK ENGLISH" to immigrants, and the other families shown are diverse in terms of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation and range in age from new college grads to retired people.”
At the risk of adding another to the pile, (and I haven’t seen the show or read enough of the book to have a valid opinion overall) the related thing I keep thinking about is that much of the stuff I have or the volume of the same thing I have, is actually about stockpiling things of perceived future need. For whatever reason, maybe prescience that I’ll invariably go in to lower-earning modes some times in life or have struggles, there are things I buy when they’re inexpensive (and nonperishable), knowing that as long as it fits comfortably in my house, I’ll make use of it later when times are tougher. These aren’t staples, but they’re not pure luxury/disposable goods strictly speaking either. This is not the only way I’ve accumulated an unreasonable amount of stuff, but there is a significant amount of it that I attribute to that. And as long as I guessed right and actually use that stuff in lean times, I don’t have a lot of regrets about having it. Right now I’m working my way through lots of shampoos and soaps, some of which were gifts, some were acquired as hotel samples, and some were straight up purchases. I’ve committed to not buying more until they are all fully used up. I feel pretty good about this practice.
Above: Bodybuilder Gene Jantzen with wife Pat, and eleven-month-old son Kent, photographer, Stanley Kubrick, from the Library of Congress, which is still uploading delightful photos to Flickr. This one has no known copyright restrictions - have at it!
The irresistable human tendency to anthropomorphize. Brands are not people, no matter how the law treats them sometimes. They can’t like you, they can’t hug you, give you a gift, be mad at you, agree with you, forgive you, get your back. Their social media presences are categorically different from an account representing an individual human even if that human is closer to a “personal brand”. We make fun of ancient cultures for their tendency to see phenomena in the world around them as human-like, and even struggle to relate. But in the current moment the vast majority of us live unquestioningly under an apparently irresistible fiction that feels very similar.
And it’s easy to forget that by definition, brands’ actions can always be viewed as punching down, not up. By virtue of their market cap, their organizational hierarchy, their buying power, lobbying, and leverage, their shareholders and board, and most importantly, their inherent lack of sympathetic fluids, bone, and soft tissue, they are in the power position.
Of course, the burger company that has hired the creatives who write the very best off-the-cuff insult gag lines is awesome (See the much lauded Wendy’s Twitter takedown day, where the premise was that Wendy’s account became the funniest, most likeable asshole). Of course, the ethically challenged bottled water company is so funny and clever for subverting the line between coverage and sponsorship and forcibly jamming their way into a cultural moment. If you only read one thing about the Fiji Water stunt I’m referring to in the previous sentence, read this Helen Donanue piece in Playboy. Here are a few choice snippets:
[Actress Jamie Lee] Curtis was not and is still not okay with the charade, asserting on Tuesday in an Instagram post of herself (and Cuthbert, staggering in the background) that Curtis was fully cognizant of the "blatant promotions by Fiji and Moet where young women with their trays filled with their wares stood near a designated camera" and "knew why there was a photographer poised there." Curtis claimed she tried to move away as she loudly exclaimed she did not want to participate in advertising for either brand.
It sounds so much more jarring and less cutesy, doesn’t it?
…I don't know what's worse: that brands continue to develop "meme-worthy" cringey campaigns I can only shove into a vacant compartment in my brain labeled "Corny" or that people—people I know, people that I thought knew better—fall for it, or more critically, enjoy it. It's as if they can't grasp why a brand would go so hard to sell a few water bottles.
…The idea of "scamming" rich conglomerates—through owning, roasting, or pure trickery—somehow permeates minds as good and worthwhile, even when the perpetrators are... also rich conglomerates.
I have a hard time finding any of it funny, endearing, or cheer-worthy any more. Laugh, melt, get mad at, amplify, and cheer at things humans do in their capacity as humans more.
I’ll also leave you with this recent Tweet from Douglas Rushkoff, which is a little dramatic but gets as something worth thinking about as more and more we’re addressed through composite personas, filters, and behavioral data matrices: “The gap between who we are and who the platform’s algorithms say we are may just represent the tiny bit of human mystery we have left. We must cherish it and cultivate it in ourselves and everyone we meet. #teamHuman”
Bonus banana: There’s a fantastic comic generator/playtoy for a comic strip I enjoy very much, called Webcomicname.
Those are all the bananas I have for you this week. Like I said up top, we’re now all on Substack instead of Tinyletter and I’m still finding my way around. Things may work a little different. If you want to test out replies, hit “reply” and send something and see what happens. No guarantee yet that it’ll go only to me.
Thank you.