How Do You Want It?

Fill Up Your Cup!

Saw this spray painted onto the sidewalk along my way to work.

All is well in Chicago tonight.

There is even Fun in Funeral!

The Fun Theory,
Great concept wonder what else it can be applied too. . .

Winner Winner Turkey Dinner!

I'm a big fan of this ad. I want that bikini! And that burger!

Never Betray The Way You've Always Known

It is

My new obsession, Eadweard J. Muybridg's artwork. I think I might make a modern take on it for fun.

The images I saved from Artstor, a source my university allows access too, does not seem to work on here.


but you can see more images and read about him here: Eadweard J. Muybridge

There seemed to be a bucket theme he did which were my favorite! If I can figure out how to download them on here I will do so immediately.

The PR Behind PBR

Beer is one of the most popular and highly valued beverages in most cultures; there is even a Mesopotamian goddess of beer. The American industry has hundreds of varieties, many of which – including Pabst Blue Ribbon (PBR) –  have managed to create a well-known image customers can easily recall. Even for prevalent beer products, having a public relations (PR) team is essential. In the late 90’s PBR saw such a huge drop in sales and consumer demand that many analysts concluded it would be impossible to restore the brand; however, public relations proved itself worthy against advertising in a time when Bud, Coors, and Miller were taking over the industry through multimillion dollar advertising campaigns. Public relations revived PBR by combining communication channels – one-on-one, hosting events, and public media – with their message: authenticity, to target there audience, sub-cultures of hard working Americans who distrust marketing ads and hate “the man”. 

            One-on-one channels are very personal but risky due to low reach and high cost; however, this tactic was perhaps the most effective for PBR. This face-to-face communication began with a representative handing out free PBR at bars in the local Portland area. He did not advertise the beer or dress corporate. He simply handed out great quality at a cheap price in a time of low economic downturn. The public relations team understood this is what consumers wanted, and good customer service spreads by word of mouth faster and more authentically than the company could have promoted themselves. Most importantly, this let their consumers create the image of PBR through passing the message along to others who have similar social beliefs. These would become PBR’s loyal fans.

Hosting events was a large part of success, even though it had a low audience reach. They began by sponsoring Portland’s local mainstream community events. PBR hosted free music and art shows, often having contests give away prizes, free food, drinks, and fun. Shows they sponsored were mostly indie such as the “Tiny Bikeshop Concert” and live painting such as the “Execute Rogue Citizen Gallery 13”.  This allowed them to target the desired audience and bond these individuals’ novel experience with PBR. Perhaps more importantly than who they sponsored is who they didn’t sponsor. Kid Rock and snowboarders offered to endorse the PBR name, yet they were publicly rejected. PBR made sure people knew that they were not in it for large endorsements with big names; they were a drink for the average individual. In this way Public relations kept PBR’s authenticity by not advertising.

Finally public media was used to create awareness of the PBR brand toward a high reach of individuals by radio and websites. PBR sponsored Public National Radio a station of listeners interested in cultural programming received PBR’s message. These tactics revived PBR, but Public relations did not stop. Today public media sustains the image through the Pabst Brewing company website’s witty, authentic, and passionate writing concerning the Pabst product, history, awards, and distributors.  Also PBR was identified as a hard-working American man’s beer in the 2008 movie Gran Torino as it was the main character, Clint Eastwood’s drink of choice. Along with keeping up with the twenty-first century trend, they also have controlled facebook, blogs, and twitter accounts.

There are so many beers to choose from and all say something about your own identity; it becomes just as much a fashion statement as a refreshing beverage. Establishing a quality name is crucial, and PBR’s public relations campaign was successful in using the right channels to get the right message across to the right people at the right time.  

I want to bang on these drums all day

After many hours I finally finished my photoshop project. . . goodnight.

BLACKHAWKS!!

My brother's jersey. He makes a lot of friends when he wears it. 

Just spreading some Blackhawk luck! First playoff game tomorrow.

Temporarly "Fictious" Dream

handmade jewelry that will one day be a maw and daughter business

Wine for Dinner

These images were inspired by boredom, wine, and mostly by rapIDview's(Richard Pearson's) blog

http://rapidview.blogspot.com/2011/04/numbers.html

Disclaimer: I do not encourage the use of the following words

Eskimos have a multitude of ways to describe/say snow. This word says a lot about thier culture and how they need to communicate to survive in that environment.

It was brought to my attention that Americans have multiple ways to reference sex and money. I know . . . we have such a rich culture. . . I started my own list to see just how many synonyms we have. 

Participation in this "cultural research study" of mine would be effective. (I'm not actually performing a study I'm just curious aren't you?)

SEX                                                                                            

Intercourse                                                                                  

F***in                                                                                        

Smash                                                                                         

Slammin                                                                                     

porn?                                                                                          

making love                                                                               

sleeping together                                                                        

screw                                                                                         

making babies                  

MONEY

Currency

Green

Mullah

Dough

Cash

Bills

Loot?

Coins

Cha Ching

This cannot be all of the variations because it seems like year after year our culture adds on more synonyms such as the popular Jersey Shore additions for sex or newly recorded hip hop songs referencing money.

any more add-ons?

                                                                                                    

Inspired by Food Inc. (after a month I was able to eat chicken again)

If you have not seen the Food Inc. documentary I urge you to watch as you will be astonished by the little power consumers have over the food we eat everyday and the control a few corporations have on the Food Industry even inflicting there power over government rules.

Food Inc. can be seen for free on youtube in 10 segments: Food Inc.
I challenge you to watch the trailer and then pass up the whole documentary.

Dare. Double Dare. Tripple Dog Dare.



I have recently been using blogs as resources for some of my required papers and I figured maybe I should post something of substantial knowledge to share. Below is a research paper that was required for my Business Ethics class in which I had to parallel philosophy ideals with ethics portrayed in business.

I am a huge health conscious person probably spawning from my athletic career so while this may seem biased it is frieghtenly truthful and the information is derived from legitimate sources following the paper.

*I ask that if any information is taken from my paper it is cited as I site useful quotes/ideas I derive from blogs.

Fall Quarter 2010

“Organic verses Processed”

Reliable Consumers need to go organic if they want to have any control over what they put in their body. Companies inside the food industry have more control over our food than the government. In fact they have control over the government and policy groups like the FDA. They decide where to buy the ingredients that make up the final product, how to process the food through the production line, and spend many hours deciding what label would attract the most consumers. This epoch is about consumers gaining control back from powerful businesses. The only way consumers can stand up to them is to buy true organic. True organic means that consumers must realize all the ways food corporations have made unethical decisions in business plans, agriculture processes, genetically modified crops without consumer awareness, and use misleading labels to target consumers.

Both companies and consumers make decisions based on their own self-interest, which, according to Adam Smith, benefits society through efficient productivity. Companies crave a profit while consumers desire food with health benefits; however, despite making profits, many companies become greedy, disregarding the interests of consumers as they seek ways to maximize their profit. These profit-seeking practices may not only conflict with the ethical interests of consumers, but may also result in environmental degradation and an unhealthy product.

Consumers may protect their self-interest by shopping organic rather than purchasing processed foods, as organically grown and processed foods often meet higher standards in terms of consumer safety, environmental benefits, and ethical treatment of animals.

A brief history of the evolution of the food industry reveals how what were once ethical farming decisions, agricultural practices, and marketing strategies, have given way to genetically modified crops, unethical means of slaughter, and misleading labels designed to exploit consumers. Beginning before WWII organic farming was commonplace among small-market, family-owned farmers whose self-interest depended on environmentally-friendly farming practices. These farmers owned and operated on small parcels of land, so the consequences of environmentally-degrading methods of farming would have been very serious.  Without fertile land for growing crops to sell, these small-time farmers would have had little or no income, and would have been unable to support their families.  Society generally benefitted from small-business farming until growing technology made division of labor practices described by Smith more attainable, following WWII. The division of labor, according to Smith, creates a more productive society through increased dexterity of workers, time saved by no longer jumping between two tasks, and technological innovations such as mechanical labor.  In and after the 1940s, innovations in crop production and harvesting practices, due to the now-popular division of labor, allowed traditional organic farming to evolve very quickly into modern or conventional farming. Farmers began focusing on one crop instead of a variety because it sped up the process of production, allowing for an increase in productivity. Following the transition from multi-crop farms to single-crop farms, the invention of tractors and the discovery of a chemical pesticide (developed by the army to control disease-carrying insects among troops), which was applied to crops to prevent weed growth and diseases, only made mass-production farming more practical and more appealing to business owners.  At this time conventional farming also seemed beneficial from a societal perspective, but as time went on it was evident that the pursuit of an efficient system of production in the food industry came at a price.  While productivity was at an all-time high, consumer health plummeted, new illnesses emerged, and the environment was degraded.

In considering any dispute between the interests of profit-seeking producers and health-conscious consumers, it is often necessary to determine what role, if any, the government should play in resolving or regulating such a conflict.  This is especially important within an industry like the food industry.  Not only is it necessary for citizens to consume the products of the food industry, but the consumption of these products can have very serious consequences, many of them health-related.  The government is usually the mediator between the companies who produce our food and the consumer who necessarily consumes it. Still, companies, corporations, and conglomerates have found ways around government regulation, and have taken control of the system – a reality that many consumers may not be aware of; however, this has not always been the case.

 Consumers seemed to have some power two decades ago when the government heard their plea to pass the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. This set regulations that farmers had to meet in order for their product to receive the USDA organic approved label. These standards gave shape to and defined the term organic, which refers to any product produced without manmade chemicals and/or using animals having free range of the outdoors. Once farmers met this standard, they were also required to submit to multiple governmental inspections, fill out 500 pages of paper work, and were required to spend $2,000 to $4,000 a year for the label to be placed on their product. Having the label on a product meant it could be sold for a premium price.

The higher market value of an organic product compared to a non-organic product is explained by John Locke’s labor theory, which describes how value is added to a product through labor. Organic farming is much more labor-intensive than conventional farming; hence, the organic-approved sticker, in many senses, offers proof of the hard work and, likewise, the higher quality, of a particular product, which justifies its higher value. Organic farmers who did not take the necessary steps to label their product with a “USDA organic” sticker were consequently forced to sell their products on the shelf next to conventional products.  As a result, many small-business organic farmers, whose incomes were meager compared those of corporate farmers, could not afford USDA certification and, thus, could not afford to fairly represent the quality of their product, most of which were, in reality, of equal or superior quality to the products marketed by their wealthier, corporate competitors.

Indeed, most organic farmers operated small farms whose income grossed as little as $5,000 annually. Furthermore, because they do not use chemical pesticides and/or herbicides to defend against invasion and infestation, organic farmers can rarely predetermine how fruitful a year’s harvest will be. Thus, due to their comparatively low and variable incomes, many organic farmers did not seek USDA certification for their crop, as they determined it to be either impractical or unaffordable.  So while the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 was intended to support and protect organic food production, it worked in a way that ultimately benefited society’s large companies and corporations rather than its individuals – the organic farmers who were rendered financially unable to compete for their place in the organic market.

This phenomenon is described by and consistent with John Locke’s law of nature, which states that nature exists to be made use of, and whoever can make the most use of it should own it. We see this law enacted each time a large corporation with the means to produce more efficiently than a small-business farmer is able to purchase that farmer’s land and/or his business.  This practice may be fine and acceptable in the spirit of free-market capitalism; however, the result may ultimately be damaging to the consumer and may, in fact, undermine Locke’s own labor theory.  On one hand, a corporate-farmer who inherits a family-owned farm will naturally exert less effort to produce the same organic product than did the family who previously owned the business.  Because he is able to afford more mechanical labor than the previous owner, the corporate farmer is able to produce the same organic product, under the same name and label, but with less labor.  In other words, the corporate farmer can often skip the hard work phase by purchasing a smaller business that had already established value in the organic industry.  A second pit-fall occurs when the corporate farmer produces the same quantity of product as the previous small-business owner, but due to differing means of production, that product does not meet the same quality standards, yet retains the same label and USDA certification.  In this case, the consumer is deceived; he continues to trust a label he has grown comfortable with, but is unaware that the means of production may no longer meet his expectations.

Such companies do not join the organic sector of the food industry with the motive to make a more environmental and/or consumer friendly product; they did this for money.  There was an obvious rise in this sector from 1999 to 2000 as it increased from 1 billion to 9.3 billion and has increased 20% each year during that decade. The organic movement led to three seemingly unethical moves by companies within the organic foods industry. The first one of disguising a company within an established organic company has already been examined above.

Next, a business in a capitalist economy, particularly large, profit-maximizing corporations, use an organic brand primarily to attract or target – not to benefit – the consumer. The process can be explained by Louis Althusser’s Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus theory. He states that ideology is designed and structured by the capitalist and has the strongest force when used in education. Ideology “interpellates” or “hails” individuals into categories, such as organic consumers or organic-minded individuals. The capitalists have created a socially acceptable group of well-off people who can afford naturally grown organic food. This group is idolized by many other individuals who are easily hailed into this group. Althusser would state this as an example of hailing, “Hey you! You are a healthy individual!” Most of the interpellation takes place in the food labels designed by the profit-driven capitalist. In other words, a consumer sees the organic label, which he associates with good health; he then identifies himself as a healthy individual, or a health-seeking individual, and finally determines that the organic product fits his needs more closely than the non-organic product close-by.  So he purchases the organic product.  Without the organic sticker – Locke’s proof of value the product would not have as strong a hailing impact on the consumer.

Looking deeper, the USDA has “never claimed a health benefit” of organic food, compared with processed food. The perception that organic food is necessarily healthy food is a developed capitalist ideology. Generation Y has been bred into the organic society. We were taught about healthy organic through the strongest apparatus function: by ideology, which is reinforced by education, family life, and the media. All of these factors have made organic products idolized and socially acceptable by individuals. The repressive state apparatus functions by violence, when we are “force-fed” by the media, public and private education, and family ideology the perception that the consumption of processed foods will leave us ill, obese, or unhealthy.  And while there is no evident difference between organic and conventional nutrition labels, there is, in fact, a difference in what is hidden by nutrition labels.

Lastly, when the company is settled into the industry they need to choose organic farmers to buy from. These companies make large profits by buying in bulk at low prices, which typically means buying from larger farms that inevitably do less to protect the environment. Since organic crops do not yield in large amounts, companies import crops from countries with suspect standards on organic crops such as China. Chinese law states no foreign countries are aloud to inspect their crops. So, the U.S. has to pay for a Chinese official inspector to do it for them. But these inspectors do not enforce American regulations and standards, at least not strictly. Because of this, companies may now sell bulk products for low prices which drive out small organic farmers who cannot afford both valued labor and such competitive prices.

While the organic sticker loudly informs the consumer that no pesticides, chemicals, manmade fertilizers, or antibiotic shots have been used in the preparation of a meat product, for example, the sticker does not make mention of what has been used in the product, such as genetically modified genes or cloned animal meat.

Companies are not required to list genetically modified (GM) products, this is freighting because there have been no peer-reviewed publication of clinical studies on human and animal health related to the consumption of genetically modified food. GM foods are crops that have one or more genes artificially inserted into the crop’s genome. Potential side effects of consuming GM products include unpredictable development of unknown toxic/allergic elements. This can be dangerous because digesting any minor constituents with high biological activity may have harmful effects on the gut and metabolism.                                                                                                                                     To consume genetically modified products has not been proven dangerous; however, more frightening is the fact that it has not yet been proven absolutely safe.  The first and only genetically modified evaluation was done on a tomato. The results claimed no significant alternations but the test conducted was determined to have no validity.  Scientists tub feed rats GM tomatoes, and compared them to those that were fed regular tomatoes. No histology on the intestines was done, even though stomach ulcerations were found in some of the GM-exposed rats.  Also, seven out of forty rats on GM tomatoes died within two weeks for unstated reasons. The FDA decided that no toxicological testing of other GM foods would be required in the future.

In some cases, the FDA cannot or simply do not make decisions on processes such as cloning, which they neither publicly support nor oppose. There has been much more reliable research done on cloning animals but the FDA continues monitor – without regulating – cloning technology and development of clones as a source for food. Cloning allows farmers to pick the cow with the best, most desirable traits, such as disease-resistance, and reproduce twins of them. Scientist inject the DNA from the prized cow and insert it into another cow to give birth. Opponents to cloning believe that cloned animals endure unnecessary pain and stress, and the process results in unhealthy animals. While the FDA has not been able to set a decision, they have decided it is not necessary to alert consumers when a food product has been cloned. If the FDA labeled their products, then consumers could make their own educated decision, or voluntarily put themselves at risk. Still, the companies, which control the actions of the FDA, either by contributions or lobbying, are able to legally avoid labeling their products in order to alert consumers of any potential health risks.

The only way consumers can control what they put in their body is by educating themselves in order to be able to decipher the nutrition label. The FDA requires products to include an ingredients list and nutrition facts table. This is the only truth that consumers can trust.  Consumers should avoid vague words like “Light,” “Low Fat,” and “High Fiber!” These words give off a positive feeling; however they are usually included on a label only to mislead the consumer, or to avoid detection of any unwanted ingredients by consumers. The best thing to remember is that the healthiest foods often don’t have fancy labels.  Less ingredients typically means a product is closer to its natural state.  The nutrition label lists what consumers consume the most daily. Instead of looking for reducing consumption of “bad” things such as fat and sodium consumers should try looking for “good” things such as Calcium and vitamins, although it is always important to look at calories and the product as a whole when it has a suspicious label like “Low Fat”.

Consumers are without government support. All that is left is consumers working together to decipher company’s tricks used in organic buying, processing, and selling. Consumers need to defend their self-interest and improve society by buying organic food from local farmers.

Works Cited

Anita, Manning. "USDA gives bite to organic label." USA Today n.d.: Academic Search

Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.

Basil, Michael D., Debra Z. Basil, and Sameer Deshpande. "A Comparison of Consumers and Dieticians: Nutrition Focus, Food Choice, and Mental Accounting." Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing (2009): 1-16. Academic Search Premier. Web. Oct.-Nov. 2010.

Gomiero, T., M. G. Paoletti, and D. Pimentel. "Energy and Environmental Issues in

Organic and Conventional Agriculture." Critical Reviews In Plant Sciences

27.4 (Jul/Aug 2008): 239-54. Academic Search Premier. Web. Oct.-Nov. 2010.

Gross, Alexandra, and Eliza Murphy. "SEAL OF DISAPPROVAL." E - The

Environmental Magazine 21.1 (2010): 34-37. Academic Search Premier.

EBSCO. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.

Harris, Mark. "Organic FUTURES." Vegetarian Times 283 (2001): 74. Academic

Search  Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.

Heller, Samantha. "Men's Health." 18.7 (2003): 116. Academic Search Premier. Web Oct.-Nov. 2010.

Jegtivg, Shereen. "What Are Processed Foods?" Web. 1st Sept. 2009. 

-B

This is the only time we will see and live this event

Received this in my e-mail a few days ago. Thought it was interesting but not as epic as the massive forwarded e-mail chain before me suggests it to be, in my opinion, how about yours?

THIS IS THE ONLY TIME WE WILL SEE AND LIVE THIS EVENT Calendar for July 2011  (United States) July Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Phases of the moon: 1: 8: 15: 23: 30: Holidays and Observances: 4: Independence Day ________________________________ Money bags This year, July has 5 Fridays, 5 Saturdays and 5 Sundays. This happens once every 823 years. This is called money bags. So, forward this to your friends and money will arrive within 4 days. Based on Chinese Feng Shui. The one who does not forward.....will be without money. I did forward this to one person and a few days later a co worker gave me a dollar because I switched my shift with him. Still not so sure I'm convinced about  "Money Bags" Further in photoshop after a short lesson on selecting and mark making tools  followed by how to use levels and curves to fix over or under exposed pictures  and a grand finale with sharpening techniques . . . let me catch my breath.  My next project was to scan images into our lab computer and use the learned functions to create 10 layers on each image. Here are a few of the outcomes: Love alice in wonderland and have recently been interested in  t  y  p  o  g  r  a  p  h  y  .   Was my phone background for many years. ( This is not my bunny) Images of the surgeons were from the New York Times.  Still playing with the font. Before and after the addition  of the levels, curves, and the sharpen feature. The flower was very difficult, still tweaking it.  Learning a lot however, I'm not 100% sure on the outcome I should be striving for with these last images.  Hopefully next class will take care of that -B

Sexy hair, sexy body, sexy mind, the sexy Malcolm Gladwell

Two of my favorite things Malcolm Gladwell and food. Speaking of food I encourage you to make your next mac n cheese meal with chili con queso. You'll thank me later. 

Gladwell is a well known writer for the New Yorker and a few novels. I have read Tipping Point and look forward to reading Blink this summer. Here is an interesting speech he gave in which he      

      parallels happiness and spaghetti sauce. 

This should introduce his book's charm and knowledge better than I could

Link to TED-Malcolm Gladwell

  

                                                                             -B

Facebook, check. Smartphone, check. Twitter, check. Blog . . . check.

I am currently a student who reassigned myself from a business major to a communications major so I wouldn’t have to take any math classes, but seriously, I get uncontrollably gitty the more I learn about communications. Also, I decided to attempt a media art minor. I am currently completing a beginner Photoshop and Illustrator class and will unfortunately post images. I apologize ahead of time but these should encourage all to try and be more creative even if you believe your genes do not allow you to.

I haven’t decided the identity of this blog other than for my own selfish greed to obtain technology/media/communication experience that will fill out my internship resume.  Well since you asked . . . I’m searching for public relations, advertising, or a marketing field summer 2011 intern spot in Chicago.

The last time I had a blog it was at journal.com and I posted personal emo poems and pictures, oh teenage angst . . . how embarrassing. This time I will probably blog wisely using it to develop writing skills, post current events, things of interest to me and questions (mostly concerning public relations or advertising) I have in hopes I can stumble upon answers through time.

One thought that has been stumping me since the start is how

Public Relations and Advertising focus on creating and maintaining positive identities for companies, products, and individuals yet they are tagged as untrustworthy professions. How are they not able to create and maintain a positive image of themselves?

In unrelated thoughts my first Photoshop project was (without any knowledge) to create anything that will be used to measure the degree of progress through the course. As follows. . .

I had sushi on the mind, smugly pleased with outcome.

-B