Lack of poly-activism a marketing problem? (part III)
ABSENCE OF POLY-ACTIVISM AS UNSUCCESSFUL MARKETING:
PART 3 of 5 (CONTINUED FROM PART 2)
III
This Realm of the Cool contains people who are much more receptive to
innovations than are the other 75% or so of society. People in the Realm
of the Cool tend to take most of their cues about what to buy, try, or
adopt from people on the Edge, especially from people on the Cutting Edge,
but the two populations possess quite different mentalities.
The main distinction between “Edge” people and “Cool” people involves a
difference in the way they mentally calculate RISK vs. BENEFIT when
considering trying something new. In contrast to people on the Edge,
people in the Realm of the Cool have a significant fear of social
disapproval, fear of risk, fear of failure and a significantly lower
tolerance for inconvenience, discomfort and uncertainty. Whereas such
emotional considerations count for little when a Cutting Edge person
calculates the RISK/BENEFITS ratio of a potential option, such feelings
play a MAJOR role in the decision-making processes of “Cool” people.
Unless convinced that the benefit of adopting an innovation outweighs
these negative emotional costs by a substantial margin, “Cool people”
won’t adopt it. On rare occasions, the modifications made by Cutting Edge
people and the communication of their experiences with the innovation are
sufficient to convince at least a few such denizens of the Realm of the
Cool that a “satisfactory risk/benefit ratio” exists. If so, the
innovation gains a foot in the door of the Realm of the Cool and begins to
spread through this vast new territory. Once there, it will now probably
undergo considerable further transformation, sanitation and “refinement”
roughly comparable to what happens when a package of raw beef is opened,
reshaped, cooked and served up to a customer as a cheeseburger on a plate
complete with garnish.
Such moderation, refinement, and revision is crucial. Expanding the
range of “acceptable” foods to all manner of vegetables, fruits and grains
instead of limiting it only to brown rice might allow an innovation like
“vegetarianism” to gain entry into the Realm of the Cool. The concepts of
“sex = sin” and “chastity = holiness” were further “revised” so that
nobody’s genitals had to be PHYSICALLY mutilated and that it was only the
cult’s PRIESTHOOD that had to remain totally celibate, while the cult’s
other adherents were merely required to restrict their sexual activity to
ONE spouse, (but NEVER just for pleasure - ONLY for the production of
children). This drastic revision likewise apparently proved sufficient to
allow this concept to gain a following within the Realm of the Cool. As
the industrial revolution took hold and the traditional motivations for
marriage eroded, the ideal of “romantic love” was modified and enlisted to
“rescue” the institution of marriage. However, the radical concept of
Romantic Love had to be severely modified so that instead of LITERALLY
“sacrificing their lives” for their beloved, each member of the couple
merely sacrificed their sexual freedom and most of their individuality to
their “ONE and ONLY” spouse that had supposedly been uniquely designated
to them by FATE. The willingness to do this was supposedly “proof” that
the person was genuinely in an exalted quasi-mystical state called “IN
LOVE,” which was allegedly a state akin to saintliness, and therefore was
vastly more pure and spiritually exalted than the kind of love,
cherishing, affection or sexual attraction that existed between other
“ordinary” and “profane” people. Achieving such an emotional state
supposedly validated each person who did so as a “special” and uniquely
blessed individual vastly superior to those who were “NOT IN LOVE.” Such a
drastic moderation and redefinition of the original concept of ROMANTIC
LOVE seems to have been a prerequisite to the idea attaining wide appeal.
And so it goes.
Just as only a small minority of things that exist on the Fringe ever
pass from the Fringe to the Edge, only a tiny minority of innovations that
live on the Cutting Edge manage to make it to the Realm of the Cool. It is
important to understand that the mere passage of time is NOT the relevant
variable that determines whether something passes from the Edge to the
Realm of the Cool or not. Many practices like Satan worship, electric
forks, coffee enemas, human/equestrian sexual intercourse, cannibalism,
pedophilia, self-castration, auto-erotic strangulation, and human
sacrifice really are just too harmful, crazy, unethical, impractical, or
useless to survive outside the Edge environment, - no matter how intensely
they are hyped or marketed, and no matter how much time passes.
The Realm of the Cool is many times larger than that of the Cutting
Edge. But for an innovation to gain entry here it finds itself having to
pass muster on at least a few measures like “moral acceptability,”
aesthetic appeal, safety and practicality that were not previously
demanded of it while it was living on the Edge. The innovation MUST be
convincingly seen as being at least passably acceptable from an ethical
standpoint, as well as being a fairly workable and relatively SAFE means
of satisfying some real need that substantial numbers of people actually
feel they have. (Even if that “practical” need is something as ephemeral
as boosting one’s ego, thrill-seeking, increasing someone’s prestige,
catering to their vanity or creating a false sense of security or
accomplishment).
One sign that an innovation has passed from the Edge to the Realm
of the Cool is when the media coverage of it changes. When something
truly is on the Fringe, almost by definition, it is receiving no media
attention at all. For the most part, this same total absence of media
coverage is also true of things on the Bleeding Edge and things on the
Cutting Edge as well.
There are, of course, rare exceptions when such Edge phenomena receive
SOME media attention. However, that attention tends to be limited to news
reports of the death, hospitalization or arrest of the practitioners of
that innovation, interviews with “the victim’s family,” or interviews with
his grieving widow, overly apologetic defense attorney, embarrassed mother
or outraged former spouse. It may take the form of one of those infamous
interviews with his stunned co-workers or neighbors, typically held
outside the courthouse, in front of the ashes of the innovator’s home, or
across the street from “the compound,” as they speculate about “where he
went wrong.” The innovator’s kindergarten report card may be examined on
national television to reveal that she frequently had to be disciplined
for “running with scissors,” or that she “did not play well with others.”
His boyhood friends may be interviewed, and quoted as saying things like
“he always had an inordinate fascination with sharp objects and spiders as
a child.” Whatever the superficial form such media attention takes, such
media attention invariably is of a “freak show” flavor.
The intended message of such attention is to say, “Look what these nut
cases/perverts are doing now! Aren’t you glad YOU aren’t one of them?!”
Either that, or “Look what these depraved lunatics are doing! Something
MUST be done to stop them!” Such media coverage tends to further
marginalize the innovation, and the greater moral outrage and condemnation
this can bring with it may actually DECREASE the popularity of the
innovation. It can even result in persecutions or laws being passed
against something that wasn’t illegal previously simply because nobody was
aware that it existed. Such media coverage is designed to keep the
innovation on the Edge forever, - NOT to move it from the Edge into the
Realm of the Cool, - and this tactic is almost always successful.
Polyamory does NOT need any more of THIS kind of publicity.
Media attention for an innovation entering the Realm of the Cool
has an entirely different tone. Instead of portraying the lifestyle,
product or behavior as a perverse thing that only freaks, fanatics,
weirdoes or the criminally insane would be involved with, the phenomena
instead tends to be treated in a manner that makes it seem that it
represents a legitimate choice that at least SOME intelligent people might
make. Such coverage can still have this flavor even if it is made clear
that the author, interviewer and most of their audience obviously wouldn’t
want to make that choice for themselves. Such behavior may be presented as
eccentric, odd, peculiar and not particularly to the liking of the
majority, but it is BEGINNING to be treated like something that at least
SOME sane, ethical, intelligent people MIGHT want to have or do.
In many cases where the innovation fails to cross the boundary
into the Realm of the Cool, it is the way the innovation has been
“packaged” or presented by its Edge aficionados that is responsible for
keeping the innovation a “captive” on the Edge. Sometimes this is
unwitting, where the Edge practitioners, despite their sincere intention
to spread the innovation further, simply prove to be unequal to the task.
No matter how hard they try, they consistently present the concept in a
way that obscures its value to other people, and makes it seem repulsive
even to otherwise fairly courageous people in the Realm of the Cool that
otherwise might have boldly seized upon it and made it their own.
In other instances, the Edge-dwelling devotees of the innovation
accomplish the same thing, more or less DELIBERATELY because they seek to
“possess” the innovation for themselves, and jealously guard it against
being “appropriated” or “EXPLOITED” by mainstream society.
For example, in the early 20th century, steam-powered automobiles
genuinely were a superior technology compared to the then primitive
internal combustion cars. Steam-powered cars were capable of speeds well
above 200 miles per hour at a time when internal combustion cars could
barely do 40. Steam-powered cars were cleaner burning, less polluting,
more fuel efficient, simpler to build, easier to repair, and could as
easily be adapted to run on coal, wood, kerosene, alcohol, hydrogen, or
natural gas as well as gasoline. In the early 1900’s, steam-powered cars
seemed destined to dominate the automotive industry for the rest of the
century. Why didn’t this happen?
At least a partial answer is found in the fact that steam-powered car
enthusiasts formed their own Cutting Edge subculture vaguely similar to
that formed by Harley-Davidson motorcyclists in the 1950s and 1960s, which
was very wedded to certain superfluous features of steam-powered cars.
Such drivers, for instance, loved the reckless, macho, anarchistic image
associated with the fact that steam-powered cars could readily outrun
anything the police of the average town tried to chase them down with
(especially in the days before police cars were equipped with radios).
Such a “bad boy” image had a way of repelling most mainstream, more
genteel car buyers. Likewise, though it would have required but a simple
modification, manufacturers of steam-powered cars refused to recycle the
water used to make the steam that powered each car, preferring instead to
vent that steam directly into the air. Such continuous venting of steam
constituted an annoyance to nearby pedestrians and created a road hazard
to the drivers directly behind a steam-powered car. The resistance to
adding a water-recycling unit to each car had no economic incentive nor
engineering motive, but was simply due to the fact that the sight of the
thick plume of steam billowing from the car as the driver roared through
town at twice the speed limit whilst ignoring the stop signs was a
conspicuous feature of a “glamorous” cultural icon. This spectacle was
associated in people’s minds with the dashing, wild, carefree, macho,
reckless image of the steam car enthusiast. As such, removing this feature
from steam-powered cars would have been the equivalent of removing the
cheerleaders and half-time shows from football games, or insisting that
audiences at rock concerts all sit quietly, politely and motionless during
the entire performance. Removing such features would take much of the fun
out of the whole affair.
Similarly, steam-powered cars traditionally contained a set of pressure
gauges that needed to be monitored, and valves that needed to be manually
opened and closed at critical times while operating such automobiles.
These gauges and valves had long ago been rendered obsolete and
unnecessary by technology that easily made pressure regulation an
automatic process. But steam car manufacturers,- and their customers,
refused to part with these gauges and manually-operated valves because
their presence reinforced the cultural mystique of steam car drivers as
people who were more technologically savvy and more masterful of complex
machinery than were the drivers of “ordinary” cars. Furthermore, instead
of selling a car to anyone with the money and desire to purchase one (as
manufacturers of internal combustion cars did), the owners of the company
that had a virtual monopoly on steam car production and sales were eager
to maintain the macho image of the devil-may-care MALE steam-powered car
driver, and therefore refused to sell a steam-powered car to a woman. They
also refused to sell one to any man who, in THEIR opinion, didn’t “fit the
image” of the “kind of man” they felt OUGHT to be driving a steam-powered
car, (i.e., the majority of the male population).
Such attitudes and practices had nothing directly to do with the
essence of steam-powered automobile technology. But even so, this negative
aura stubbornly clung to steam-powered cars in the public’s mind for
decades, and apparently had much to do with the fact that the much less
efficient, dirtier, and less versatile internal combustion automobile
EVENTUALLY dominated the entire market while the potentially more
promising steam-powered cars remained on the sidelines and eventually
faded into oblivion. This, despite the continued faith and proclamations
by steam enthusiasts that steam-powered cars truly were a superior
technology, represented the wave of the future, and were destined to
dominate the industry forever.
Such persistent “sabotage” by enthusiasts of an innovation is not
uncommon. In the case of certain manifestations of Fringe art or music,
the artist may insist that no one but the creator must see or hear it,
thus preventing it from ever potentially becoming even an Edge phenomena.
Likewise, the fans and/or creators of some forms of Bleeding Edge music
will stubbornly insist that it MUST NOT be recorded, played before
audiences of more than a dozen people, be subjected to re-mixing or
post-production, or ever be marketed commercially, lest it “sell out” and
somehow lose its ideological purity, counterculture flavor or
“authenticity.” This may well be a legitimate concern, but whether it is
or not, attachment to such notions will effectively prevent the innovation
from moving into the Realm of the Cool, and tend to keep it “captive”
forever as an Edge phenomenon.
One cannot simply intensify the “promotional activities” that are done
at one stage of this game and expect them to work just as well at the
next. When trying to spread an innovation beyond the Cutting Edge, one
can’t simply arrange crude spectacles, publicity stunts or “street
theater” to attract attention, as might have worked when attempting to
spread the innovation from one part of the Realm of the Bleeding Edge to
another part of the Bleeding Edge, or from the Bleeding Edge to the
Cutting Edge. Nor can one assume that the practicality, safety and
morality of the practice will be self-evidently obvious and sufficient to
convince people in the Realm of the Cool, as may have been the case with
Cutting Edge people. One cannot simply say “it works for me,” leave it at
that, and assume that doing so will make it obvious to the rest of the
world that “it will work for them.” Nor can one simply demand “tolerance”
and expect that this will be sufficient grounds to justify the granting of
tolerance without satisfying the skeptics, cynics, critics, nay-sayers and
doubting Thomases who don’t start with the assumption that the innovation
is something worthy of being tolerated. A certain measure of reassurance
about the wisdom, safety, ethics and/or practicality is usually necessary
to a far greater degree when attempting to lure people in the Realm of the
Cool into adopting an innovation than when attempting to persuade
Edge-dwellers to do so.
It is often claimed that there is “no such thing as bad publicity.”
That statement is unfortunately only half true. It is DEFINITELY true for
Fringe phenomena trying to move themselves to the Bleeding Edge. And it
may be at least PARTIALLY true for Bleeding Edge phenomena trying to
become Cutting Edge phenomena. But there most definitely IS such a thing
as bad publicity for a Cutting Edge phenomena trying to enter the Realm of
the Cool.
The media and mainstream society may effectively mount a campaign
against an innovation that effectively arrests a phenomena on the Edge
and never lets it progress further. The simplest way, of course, is to
just ignore it. A more aggressive way is to actively give the innovation
media attention of a distorted and hostile sort that reinforces the notion
that it represents something evil, disgusting, and unacceptable. The media
can ridicule, sensationalize, mock, condemn, and cover an innovation in a
way that consistently plays up the shock value and weirdness of it, while
simultaneously ignoring and obscuring what may be authentically
interesting and worthwhile about it. The media has very effectively and
deliberately done this with every form of non-monogamy throughout the 20th
century, and still does so today.
Programs like the Jerry Springer show and its clones are excellent
examples of this. They seem to exist for no purpose other than to portray
those involved in unorthodox lifestyles as perverts, idiots and sick
deviants, hold them up to ridicule, and convince their viewers that they
do not want to emulate such weirdoes. Such media coverage tends to
restrict and consign the practice in question to the Edge.
In many cases, there may be complicity between the Edge advocates
of an innovation and their conventional opponents in the suppression of
it. In such cases, conventional society goes to great lengths to blacken
the reputation of a practice in order to keep it in its place on the Edge,
while the Edge advocates of it wittingly (or unwittingly) cooperate by
emphasizing to the media PRECISELY those aspects of the innovation
calculated to have to greatest shock value and repulsive effect.
Paganism could be considered one prime example of this. Conventional
society wants to present paganism as the epitome of something evil, weird,
sick and mondo bizarro, - more or less synonymous with human sacrifice,
cannibalism and Satan worship, and pagans as a group have historically
been willing enough to let them. When the media contacts or interviews
pagans, many such pagans are eager to emphasize their involvement with
mysterious rituals and outlandish clothing. Many such “Pagans” are eager
to display the tattoo of Dionysus encircling their anuses or their pierced
nipples for the television cameras, extol the virtues of hallucinogenic
drugs and hurl obscene insults at Christianity. Self-identified Pagans
have notoriously been MUCH more interested in doing these things than in
taking the opportunity to actually explain what AUTHENTIC pagan ideas are
about in ways that might make sense or appeal to the general public,
(whose actual attachment to orthodox Christianity is really rather nominal
and superficial). Such attitudes and behaviors, so long as they persist,
will virtually guarantee that paganism will remain an Edge phenomena
forever, and will never cross the border over into the Realm of the Cool
or beyond.
(END OF PART 3; TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 4)
