Look what they’ve done to my song, Ma!

Ok, so it’s not exactly high-brow, but while we’re on the topic of corporate involvement in entertainment, check out the awful results of Dr Pepper’s attempt to get hip with the kids.

This is the original ‘Chocolate Rain’ song, a minor YouTube hit by the unsigned (and very deep-voiced) Tay Zonday. (You don’t need to listen for more than a minute or two, because it kind of goes around in circles. Catchy, no?)

And here is the abominable Dr Pepper-funded version.

So not hip.

Good web design or bad?

Dean was talking in the lecture about finding examples of good website design, and Camille’s website came to mind. It’s slightly different now to when I first saw it, but the underlying layout is the same.

It’s one of those sites that I think looks incredible – really different and intriguing – but actually isn’t all that great to use. I’m not sure if viewing the French version would be better, but I find that it’s hard to navigate around the site, because you can’t ever see everything all at once. You can zoom out and peer at it all, but any labels (and things aren’t always labelled) are then too small to read. Even once you’ve zoomed in on something it isn’t always obvious what it is that you’re looking at. The navigation is also quite controlled. You can sometimes choose more than one direction, but not always. At times you are at the web designer’s mercy! It’s kind of an interesting way to learn about the lady and her tunes, but if you’re after fast facts (and let’s face it, that’s what the internet is all about) it can be frustrating.

Another blog post I came across the other day took a quick look at various big-brand websites over time, comparing the evolution of design. Some of them changed quite a lot (Nike, MTV, Adobe), and are noticeably cleaner and sharper than their earlier counterparts, but there were others that really hadn’t altered much at all. Amazon was one example, and it’s definitely a website that annoys me a bit. The author of the blog seemed to think that the Amazon layout hadn’t changed because users liked it the way it was, but I find it really busy and as a result, I only look at the parts I’m interested in. (I just type in the name of the book and go from there, ignoring all the other links, lists, ads, etc, etc.) I’m sure if Amazon deemed the layout of the page un-lucrative, they’d change it, so it must be working for them, but so much of the information there is wasted on me.

It does seem to me to be a particularly American style of webpage. (Even though the UK page looks very similar, I put that down to it working off the US template.) Of course there are millions of US sites that are very cleanly designed (like those mentioned above) but that particular Amazon style with lots of little text-heavy fields screams US of A. They invented the internet, after all. It’s a style that turns up on lots of book covers too, which is originally where I started thinking about it (particularly when the same book is published in a number of markets). I’ll add a few examples tonight…

Baby steps… to the end of the world?

So, the crazy cats at South Park have put all their episodes online. It’s only in beta form, and I’m sure there’ll be a bit of tweaking here and there, but it’s another little sign of creators of content bypassing distributors. The South Park episodes are free, but not having watched one yet (I’m at work, where I dearly wish streaming cartoon kids with potty mouths was ok, but sadly…) I’m not sure if there’s advertising through them at all. There’s a couple of ad spaces on the main page, so maybe that covers it and the episodes are un-adulterated.

It’s interesting that they’re even putting up stuff that’s just screened. I guess they’ve signed a new deal with whoever their network is, to the effect that they’re free to do whatever they like with their content once it’s been screened commercially. (Although Comedy Central are still listed as copyright-holders.) But I’m pretty sure most distributors/publishers/etc. would have a withering smile and shiny lawyer for any other content-creator that wanted to have that level of copyright and control over their work. I guess once you’ve ‘made it’ you’re more likely to get your way.

It’s pretty exciting that stuff like this is happening, but at the moment it seems that you can only really afford to stick it to the man if you’re Radiohead or Matt Stone. (Oh sure, you can be Joe Schmo and put your songs on MySpace, but really, break-out internet hits are positively swamped by the freaking ocean of crap that’s out there.) What I’m wondering is, if the content-creator’s revolution is really successful, and no-one ever has to give money to EMI ever again, what will happen to the whole way we entertain ourselves? What will become of JB HiFi (bless their yellow cotton socks)? Will I still have a job? (Not with JB, with the book publisher I work for.) Or are there enough drones of the status quo happy to watch TV and buy CDs they way they always have? Somehow I don’t think so…

Thanks to Matt Gierhart who inspired this rant.

*Since posting this, I’ve stumbled across a little post on the world of alternative (and mostly online) places to sell your music, if you don’t happen to be Thom Yorke. Looks like the New World Order is well underway!

Etsy gets a trust fund.

I’m still kind of meandering around my topic for the documentary, but I was excited to see this article in the Guardian mention Etsy! There’s been a bit of buzz about the place for a little while now, since the announcement of a $27 million investment partly funded by the guy who spotted Facebook back in the day. It’s going to be very interesting to see what sort of impact a whole lot of cash is going to have on the small-time feel of the site, but (I guess as one would expect) the company seems pretty keen to retain that side of things…

I also stumbled across a call-out for comments/help on a Masters thesis not dissimilar to my own. I had briefly thought of the idea of contacting Etsy users themselves, so it’s good to see they’re not opposed to the idea. Think I might email pinupchick and see how she went…

This post was not sponsored by Cadbury…

I still haven’t figured out this trackbacking thing, so I’m posting here, in response to Tessa’s post.

It’s an interesting development, and an interesting dilemma. At first (like most lefty arts students, I imagine) I was horrified by the thought of companies nosing in on the sacred world of literature. And I guess your arguments do make it clearer how we got to this point. But I still don’t think I’m convinced that it’s an ok thing.

Publishing is not a big money business. Unless you’re J.K. or Bryce, you’re not going to make your millions being an author. And that’s not because evil publishers are taking the lion’s share of the profits. Once all the overheads (editing, proofreading, text design, typesetting, cover design, printing, etc, etc) have been covered, barely 10% of the price you pay for a book ends up back with the publisher. And that’s after GST. Given the stiff competition books are up against these days, and the unpredictable impact changing technology is having on the traditional cashflow of publishers, an already tight situation is getting tighter.

If the cash injected in the books were somehow able to underwrite the existence of children’s publishing, this would only be a good thing. Children’s books should still be made, and if that means sharing a little page space with a coke here and a Wii there, so be it. However, I do wonder how much influence the companies will have editorially. Is it so much of a leap to think that before long there will be publishing arms of McDonalds and CoverGirl? (Actually, it probably is a leap, partly because of the reasons given above – there’s no money in publishing!)

I guess my point is that if the involvement of commercial enterprises can be a factor in ensuring the publication of good-quality children’s literature, well, that seems fine. But if the industry can manage to limp along without the cash (and the potential strings attached), surely that’s better? Why should we care that advertisers are losing out on TV ad time? The TV networks have a nice little rort going on, and it’s unlikely the advertisers will withdraw their TV support altogether. I’m afraid my bleeding heart doesn’t extend to the likes of mega-corporations raking it in, regardless of the tricky path the money they pass on to TV stations makes to the doors of screenwriters…

I’m more than a few easter eggs into the day, and I’m having trouble getting the words in my head onto the screen, (there’s holes a-plenty in my argument) but for what it’s worth, that’s my two cents.