HEAD BLOG

We are here again. Another company wants to rule the Internet. This time it is Apple with iTunes.

In the nineties it was Microsoft wanting to control the Internet but such small ambitions pass and companies settle down to middle age aspirations such as fast cars and curing malaria.

Apple’s youth, however, has been late in coming as they spent the nineties being way too cool to want to change the world.

Age catches us all and so it is their turn to be railing against the world. They know there is better way than all these scrappy attempts at usability and technology led by the high priests of Intel.

Standards and open source may have started the connected world but the push to mass market adoption has only ever been the result of more authoritarian mechanisms. Such as the blatant exploitation of power and position. Microsoft may not have had the purest of motives or the best of browsers back in the day, but they had a dream of a time when we would be too slack-jawed dumb in the face of shiny new products we only had to blink at in order to own.

Microsoft ‘failed’ of course. After the genie had been released to set up shop selling fake lamps. They still own the most used browser but they were damaged by lack of two things: innovation and standards.

Arguably they wouldn’t have reached the position they are at today if they’d waited for standards; ten years to get to HTML 5 has had Adobe teaching us about experiential usage of the net.

And don’t think Apple haven’t been watching all of this and learning.

They, more than most, understand the power of shiny. Their business model may screech about usability but really it’s about shiny.

Jonathan Ives brought them a whole lot of attention with shiny and only after that did he pave the way for today by stripping out the tech from MP3 players to give us something plainly usable. And shiny.

iTunes made all this possible of course. Hearing the frustrated screams of a billion consumers shouting “I just want to listen to music” Apple took the pain of ripping, levelling, organising and synching out of the fledgling digital music market to enable us all to just listen. Like we used to with the CD and cassette.

The trouble with standards, you see, is that they are a consensus achievement. And everybody involved has something they feel passionate about. This feature, they argue, will be beneficial.

They are probably right too. The trouble is that a consensus takes time to be reached. By the time we all agree some smart arse visionary has seized control of the country and forced us all to eat our greens.

And this is what standards has to contend with. It must deal with the fact that people want functionality and they want it as soon as someone is visionary enough to offer to it them. The majority of people don’t think about the issues behind monopolies. They just want to do the things they’ve been promised. Internet Explorer offered a simple way of getting on the internet. People jumped at it. I’ve had arguments with people about why what they did was wrong but the fact remains that nearly everybody I have argued with just doesn’t care. They should. But they don’t. They’d hand over the keys to their house if it meant a simpler, more fun-filled life.

The push for an open Web is a struggle against what people want most – for things to just work. Whilst others talk standards, the likes of Apple (and Adobe) are seducing us with cool. Microsoft would be alongside them, in front of them even, if it weren’t for their lack of innovation.

Many publishers are looking to Apple to help them out of the hole they’ve made in the Internet. The Cult of the Free hasn’t had as big an impact upon society as it one day could but its impact has still been sufficient to threaten high streets, the music industry and print media. If Apple can provide a gadget that people feel comfortable to buy stuff through again, well… there go the keys.

I keep on banging the choice drum. Boom, I say that the more we are exposed to choice the less choice we end up with. Boom, I say the more open markets are the fewer the shops end up operating them and now Boom, the more personalised our choices become the less we deviate away from them.

Watching Virtual Revolution on Saturday this concept was summed up (brilliantly and effectively) by Douglas Rushkoff as he explained how decision engines worked (the technology behind Amazon’s recommendation features amongst others). He ran through a programmatically logical structure of how the more we were presented with “people like you also bought” the more we became “people like us”.

It’s along the same principle of seeking out like-minded people to work with and be friends with.

I get the bus each morning. At 6:20 there aren’t many people in my village who do. In fact, generally speaking, there are five. Three of these people get on at my stop. Including myself. So, sociable being that I am I took two years to say hello to the other two. One is a postman, the other a cellar man. I didn’t realise pubs had people starting work at that time of a morning but apparantly they do.

Over the years we’ve enjoyed our ten minute chats. Much like Twitter, these shared moments build up into something far more than just a nod and a comment about the weather. Insights are gained, personal details shared and views occasionally (and tentatively) expressed.

The views aren’t always something I’m comfortable. Sometimes they are at the opposite end of the political fence where I sit, quite comfortably, knowing I am right in all things.

At one time it would have been enough to force me onto a later bus.

They hooked me, however, with their bonhomie. Many silent moments, a furtive nod of hello and a lifetime of isolation were banished simply by the two of them being nice. By showing an interest in my life and in sharing theirs.

I’d never have found them if I’d done a search for bus companions and been recommended like-minded people to share my journey with.

Now my bus buddies and I ignore what we have in common and celebrate our differences. If there were a search engine that told me what was different, even what I might hate – well I’d try that.

A Twitter post on Monday morning caught my eye because it said “Consumers are the new ad agency”. The tweet linked through to a blog which made several statements to back it up.

This was my response:

The word “consumers” is a pretty broad brush but really the usage you employ would cover only a tiny percentage of them. Some consumer generated content has earned respect – but there is only a tiny amount of it and even the Doritos ads were originated (conceptually) by an agency. And did people respond positively because it was user-generated? I have no idea but I wasn’t aware (until this article) that that was what it was. I thought it was just a nicely scripted ad which made me laugh.

Some brands and some consumers are in a two-way dialogue. Equal though? I’m not so sure. In so far as consumers have always had a choice whether to buy product A or not then yes, the responsibility continues to rest in the hands of the consumer.

Social media can empower people but as with most things, most just don’t care. Protests have always helped shaped brands, the digital age has made that easier but in some ways this could be headed for a fall as consumers become desensitized to screaming reactions from the Twitterati. But we’ll see.

Consumers have, in addition, always looked to one another for what brands to support. That’s why agencies take such pains to research and target opinion formers. Even the term “traditional media” is liquid – changing as it does with the shifts in technology that have seen advertising transform across the ages.

From focus groups to the Tupperware party, these affects have always been with us. “Consumers” are no more an ad agency than they ever were.

Social media is broadcast word of mouth, but as with so much else on Twitter – it’s a simplication that helps nobody.

The tipping point for the e-book is here. Despite the grumblings over multitasking, webcams and closed systems the launch of the iPad is already making waves.

Amazon, once the pioneer in this market and the company who brought book buying into our homes, has taken the knock as many pioneers can: by being too focussed on a single business model. Books were their stock-in-trade and, surprisingly perhaps given their successful   expansion into the wider world of online retail, books is where they chose to stay.

Now, against the backlit elegance of the iPad, Amazon’s Kindle looks as dusty and old fashioned as the books it sought to replace. The lessons it has learnt and the markets it opened are there for all to see; especially brighter, more visionary companies like Apple.

Apple have just forced Amazon to concede its persistent and historic advantage, price. By switching places, by adopting the pricing freedom which Amazon once used to undermine that of iTunes, Apple have ensured the co-operation of the major publishers whilst starting off (before they’ve really even started) on the right foot, namely a profitable and sustainable pricing model. Apple want no loss-leaders of the sort which have hamstrung the likes of Microsoft, Sony and Amazon. The future path of publishing will, it seems, be found by avoiding the potholes of other content digitisation.

The not-so-secret cheers at the first signs of Apple’s success can be heard from newspaper offices to games programmers because, much as we all love the idea of free it’s not so great when you have something you have to sell.

Had Amazon understood that getting their over-the-air delivery model right would lead to people wanting more from the technology then perhaps they wouldn’t have been so eager to adopt the digital ink format that has limited their selling power to books. Think small may be a great maxim for makers of chips but Pandora’s box of online shopping was opened a long time ago and our expectations exceed current capabilities (seriously, where is my jetpack?). We don’t so much see capability as we do potential. So reading books=great, but I’d like to watch video, look up references and buy presents for the kids too.

The iPad (and whatever personalised devices come after) aren’t so much about whether you can work on them (one editor told me she would only buy one once she could edit on it, and I’m sure there will be an App for that) but how can spend our leisure time on it.

And so we come back to the e-book as the notion of leisure time ends where it started, with a good book in front of the fire.

Digital books will pay dividends for the casual market, not because the screen is easier on the eye (it isn’t) or because they are cheaper (they aren’t), but because they are convenient. Much as I might prefer the sensual feel of paper flicking across my thumb and much as I want to scream and rebel at the idea of Apple being the gatekeeper of our leisure time, restricting and dictating the content to fit with a single person’s idea of “brand values”, I can’t help but notice that I’m changing. I’m demanding more from my books even as I read them. Engrossed as I was in Late Night On Twisted River (John Irving, 2009) I found myself pausing at moments and reaching for Wikipedia just to probe the border between reality and imagination. Irving is a master of blurring this border and whilst I was happy to be carried along with bears and prostitutes I couldn’t help but wonder more about the man behind the deaths of so many beautiful, innocent children.

In short, I wanted more, not less from the experience of reading.

David Hewson recently posted a number of photographs on his blog. He also tweeted about them. The photographs were of the places he had researched for his latest novel (The Blue Demon, available now at Amazon). On his blog he demonstrates how he took them and also why.

At the back of her books, Jodi Picoult devotes a few pages to the book club concept. She poses a list of questions people might want to consider when discussing her book.

Chicken House point would-be readers of their books to a specific passage using the bold statement “Read it! Try page…”. It’s an expansion on the old marketing trick of relating a unique selling point to salespeople by which they can enthuse about a product. The marked passage encourages readers firstly  to pick up the book and then open it. If the passage is picked properly then that provides the last link in the chain that has us hooked.

We want more, not less, from our books. With e-books (or books, as I believe we will one day call them) this won’t change.

The challenge will be in ensuring the tipping point doesn’t send us all downhill.

Nothing says “I don’t really care” like an e-card. After their initial novelty veneer wore thin, the e-card became confined to businesses  who wanted to trumpet 1) that they can save money by donating to charity but really can’t be bothered 2) that they are now taking a low-carbon approach but really can’t be bothered or 3) that their MD received one from his son (who couldn’t be bothered) and who thinks it represents the future. Of not being bothered.

Just hours after installing the new super one hour photo developing machine, everbody’s grandmother went digital consigning vast towers of squeaky paper and “leather” bound photo albums to the warehouse of oddities last seen in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Suddenly we could all take as many rubbish photos as we liked without some sixteen year old slapping a sticker on our faces telling us to do better.

Websites such as Photobox (Flickr capitalised late on this) sprang up to turn those digital files back into “product” and find a use for all the paper we thought we’d saved.

There are, of course, lessons to be learned from the e-card and the sudden collapse of entire film-to-print industry. We clearly wanted to carry on taking photos and share them with family and friends. We also enjoyed the freedom to “get creative” with our work. Especially when it came to personalisation.

Which is exactly what Moonpig saw and capitalised on to great effect. From out of nowhere came a brand with no real world value. Moonpig just created a great product at the right price and it caught on.

It must have caught the stalwarts of the greeting card industry by surprise. Just as Kodak were caught out by the rapid take-up of digital, so were Hallmark and their heavyweight counterparts. To the outside observer they seemed unfazed by Moonpig’s success even though it was clear from the start that this was an idea which would grow and grow.

Unfazed or calm.

Business strategy is a difficult beast to pin down. Those of us who press our noses up against the windows of other businesses like to weigh in on the decisions made by marketers.

I’m no exception.

Often it’s a good exercise, a sort of what-would-I-do thought experiment that sharpens the mind. Or distracts from real work.

In the case of Moonpig, I’ve often wondered why the big boys didn’t jump all over them immediately. They have the resources to protect their business on and off-line so were they being slow and out of touch with the way the Internet was shaping business or did they have a much larger strategy at hand?

We’ll never truly know of course and perhaps it doesn’t even matter because what they have established looks pretty good. It will appeal to the “rest” of us who are slower to adopt new ideas. Those of us who waited for Boots to begin processing digital films again.

The gut reaction (from what I’ve heard) is that Hallmark were just slow to react, caught with their pants down. And I’d be happy to go along with that if I wasn’t regularly having to think different about what my own industry perceives as good and bad packaging.

Because I don’t think it’s that simple. And thinking like this makes me want to look at things differently.

I can see a good business case for Hallmark waiting. Their name and reputation wasn’t going to disappear overnight and so, if they were fazed by the Internet explosion, it didn’t need to matter too much. They could afford to wait. They could afford to let Moonpig take all the risk, spend all the money and get people used to the concept of ordering and personalising cards online. After all, it’s an approach which works well for Apple who often wait to see how people access new technologies before jumping in and “innovating”.

Hallmark are now advertising on TV. They are doing it in a very “Moonpig” sort of way but with the Hallmark brand. If they go the whole… hog… then they should tie in deals with Boots and use their stores to carry the message back out into the real world where its customer base still live and shop.

With or without the release of the iSlate, the world would be facing exactly this situation but it suits my sense of drama to aim for the high note and claim Apple are ushering in Skynet whilst the rest of us reach deep into our sofas for the chunk of change it’s likely to cost.

Talk about saving for your own funeral. Maybe they will get June Whitfield to front the ads.

I’m only half joking. The iSlate is just the pinnacle of where tech has been headed these past few years; someone was bound to do it sooner or later. It’s just that Apple are perfectly poised to deliver the technology wrapped neatly into the consumer dream.

Because that, it seems to me, is what Apple trades in. Unlike Microsoft, Apple don’t deal with computers. It’s all about the consumer dream. Name another hardware manufacturer, be they HP or Sony or even the affordable semi-pioneers such as Asus and you have a collective that deals in computers, in technology.

Not so Apple. Cupertino asks what we dream of as consumers. The answers are brought to us courtesy of the technology but it’s the concept we buy into.

So how can we hold Apple in anything other than the best of regards?

Like Google, their image is one of purest ‘cool’ – if cool were a commodity worth billions and capable of keeping us in a blissful state of perpetual purchasing.

And the Google analogy isn’t accidental or merely convenient either.

Both companies are currently engaged in activities that have far reaching and potentially damaging consequences for freedom. They show us, in dramatic tones, just how far out of touch our notion of the Nation State really is. We may gripe about unelected officials being handed authority but really it is Google, Apple and, to a lesser extent even Amazon that we should really be examining.

In the pursuit of creating the ultimate in companion devices, Apple are aiming above the heads of Amazon and Google. A single device upon which we can buy books, films, music and games is a fine old dream as far as consumer dreams go but it comes with provisos attached.

Controlling the gateways to these entertainment hubs is more than just savvy business, it’s a political and economic wakeup call. The iPhone has stimulated enormous activity in development circles and led to Apple’s latest $3.3 billion dollar profit. I’ll just qualify that; first quarter profit. That’s a great achievement and the global economy must be, to no small extent, thankful.

But what longterm damage is it doing? What affect will it have on bricks and mortar retail? Unlike the threat of Internet shopping, Apple have created a system by which there need be no rival shops.

Their proprietary approach means that each of those 2 billion Apps we’ve all been busy downloading (and happily agreeing to call Apps) have been downloaded through Apple. There can be no competition to sell them just as there can be no competition to put them up for sale; even the type of application on sale to us is tightly controlled by Apple.

Of course that’s not to say it is only Apple doing this. There is competition, of a sort. Amazon is trying to control the way in which we access books – an aim which could now fail thanks to Apple who want the whole publishing pie. Google too, want in on that and it remains to be seen who will win out. Google are interesting because they have the veneer of open source to make us believe their motives are somehow purer. The recent spats over the book agreement reveals a different side.

But why does it matter? We have to buy our books, our music, our pleasures somewhere don’t we?

We do. We also need to work somewhere. Imagine a world devoid of high streets; where there is no HMV or Waterstones. A great world perhaps but they have, between them, mopped up the choice we used to have.

Independant stores are a dying breed, concentrating the hunt for jobs into fewer and fewer hands. The benefit to local economies dies with them and it’s not so much of a stretch to see a world, ten years hence, where the big shops are just online. At best.

We’ve been here before of course. The Industrial Revolution has lessons to learn from in this regard of the dangers of concentrating power in too few hands.

But we survived that, right?

Maybe.

Huge areas of poverty, inequality and unemployement followed the Industrial Revolution and it gave rise to the concept of the sweatshop, whether it be in a factory or across an entire continent. Once we allow our consumer desires to be our needs then little stands in the way of making that a reality. Once we allow Apple to be the one stop shop we ease the way for any measure which can streamline that process even further.

It doesn’t stop there either. We have already seen Amazon withdraw books for sale after they’ve been bought, reaching into the digital home and removing a publication (ironically it was 1984) from the Kindle (remember that?). Can that ever be a good thing? It’s an activity we surely associate with repressive Nations.

And that’s just what can happen to existing publications. It’s not a work of fiction that deciding what can and can’t be published in the first place has terrible ramifications.

Much applause has been given to the return of the bedroom coder. With the iPhone we saw game development break away from the huge coding conglomerates that had built up around the walls of the super publishers. The bedroom coder was back and that meant more power, more control and ultimately more money in the hands of the craftsman. But this is somewhat misleading. Because where is the self-publisher? The sole coder has full control of his own vision, up to the point when Apple becomes involved. Then it is judge and jury time. You’ve funded yourself, you’ve been creative, they say. Now it’s time to accept our payment terms – no negotiation, no choice. And that’s if we decide your creative vision is appropriate and in line with ours.

Again, we’ve seen this before. Apple aren’t reinventing the wheel, merely tightening the reins. Walmart has come under frequent fire for using it’s commercial position to dictate content to artists.

So are Apple switching on Skynet here?are we witnessing the end of control and the demise of the Nation State?

Yes.

There is, however, the chance that it will fail.

The open standards of the world wide web could be the only challenge to the monopolization of data. As long as Apple keep a web browser as part of their devices the opportunity for new ideas to seep through because anybody can publish on the Internet. Any ideas, any music, any games can all be delivered free to air through the old WWW.

But even the Internet is beginning to look a bit too unwieldy, a bit too big. How much longer before we’d rather use the Amazon App than the Amazon website? How much longer until our research is done within a single, cleverly cross-reference App with access to every book available through Apple? How much longer before it’s just easier and less confusing to altogether skip the Internet as we understand it today?

In the end we tend to take the path of least resistance and maybe that’s the problem. Who will step in whilst we get swept along? Will we see a repeat of the anti-trust suits that marred Microsoft’s rise to dominance in the 80s and 90s and in which case will they be fought on a national level or will we see the emergence of the World State in a bid to counterbalance the power.

Whatever happens with the iSlate, iPad or iTablet – we shouldn’t just suck it and see.

In this country we like to focus on the negative.

Don’t speed or you’ll kill someone.

Don’t try to claim benefits because we’re always watching you.

Give us £2 a week or children will continue to be hurt.

Ironically, the one ad I saw that was positive was for ID cards which said that if you carried an ID card, you could prove how old you were. Presumably this was the Government’s way of helping young looking 18 year olds to start binge drinking.

It’s as though we respond better to the stick than the carrot. And that might be true.

But it might not be.

Because if there is one thing I have learned it’s never to take other people’s research or “facts” for granted.

Contrast it with this neat viral for TV Licences over in in Sweden. I don’t know how effective it has been but it made me smile. I don’t know if it would make me change my behaviour because I pay the fee now but I think I’d feel good about it.

It’s different.

It’s positive.

Aol. is talking about becoming a content provider. It appears, on the surface, to be a sensible move. Indeed, as ISPs consolidate and Internet access becomes yet another of those services that have become devalued, entering the ‘freeconomy’ content inevitably becomes the first choice to attract consumers and, with them, the advertising dollar.

Yet the move has parallels with the opening of shopping centres up and down the country (and across the world). Seem strange? Bear with me.

As shopping districts turned into shopping arcades and malls (and now just supermarkets) we’ve seen consolidation of the kinds of shops available. Choice, it seems, is everywhere. Or so we are told. Yet as companies buy out chains of stores all we have is the choice of which store to enter. The contents of those stores is becoming increasingly similar. Just as we were told that we are all, more or less, one of only five or so different sizes, so too are we finding that really, a shirt is a shirt.

Choice disappears.

The debate is on regarding whether Yahoo! and Microsoft will form a credible alternative to Google. For me, there is no choice. It’s become a habit to type www.google.co.uk into my browser or use the built in search window. It’s not a matter of choice. It’s not a thing I even think about. It’s a matter of habit.

Choice disappears. All I want to do is find a webpage. Easily and quickly.

For information on a subject I will probably end up at one of the top searches and will find what I need there. I may look harder but it’s just a matter of working down the list.

For a shop, the same process unfolds.

Choice disappears.

And so to Aol. What content will they provide? Will it feed its content to other sites or is it really only talking about becoming a content portal, consolidating other people’s content?

Because that content is becoming subject to the whims of consolidation. Our choice of news seems to be getting narrower, our choice of opinions becoming polarised between Left and Right.

If it is to succeed, if Yahoo and Microsoft are to succeed, then they need to provide something radical. They need to think in terms of a paradigm shift of their respective business models.

Whatever happened to ideas?

Lately I’ve been reading a lot about consolidation. The big advertising agencies have woken up (it’s said) to the fact that there’s this big thing called the internet and that many of their clients are wanting to get face time with their audience on there. Personally I think that’s a bit of an oversimplification (of an oversimplification). But who cares? We’re all businesses first and foremost right? And businesses expand, acquire other businesses, close down, split up. It’s just life. Business life anyway.

But somehow, in the whirl of talk about web 2.0, social marketing, open web, something gets lost. It’s not enough to have ideas any more. You have to be seen to be surfing the next wave.

So these big agencies are buying up the digital agencies, strengthening their teams by purchasing the skills needed to go online. It seems an odd move. Not because being online isn’t an important part of a campaign but because these agencies should have the skills in place already. Because the skill most needed to go online is the skill of ideas.

I’m sure Head First isn’t alone in being an advertising and design agency capable of having ideas. I’ve heard rumours of one or two others in the North West alone. We don’t see our ideas as being print ideas, or TV ideas or online ideas. We see them as ideas. And the better the ideas, the more exciting it is, the more strategic it is – well, these are the ideas that transcend media. They are the lynch pin of campaigns that clients ought to be chasing.

To take an example from an old issue of The Drum let’s look at Vimto’s site. The idea there is “seriously mixed up fruit”. It’s a fun idea. It informs the development of the site but it’s easy to view it as bigger than the web side of Vimto’s new marketing direction. The idea isn’t tied to the web but is open to interpretation for any purpose. Need a print ad? No problem, the line looks sufficiently stout to withstand a whole forest of them. TV? Yep, I see from the site they’ve already been there too. How about a novelty coaster – I could rustle up some neat concepts for those too.

Our work on Bionic Commando started from a similar position. Establish an idea strong enough to carry a campaign and the rest falls into place. It helps having a team talented enough to translate the big idea into media specific projects but the fact remains that it is the idea which excites the entire campaign. And that idea must be a tangible communicable concept.

As technologies merge and consumer behaviour shifts, this need to focus on the idea first will only increase in importance. As the line between advertising, PR and online disappears the primary skill-set will be in having the ideas needed to start the conversations or open brand ears to what the consumer wants.

An idea can cut through all the hype and sounds of lumbering agencies swinging into line with consumer trends. By rushing around buying up skills, all big advertising seems to be advertising is their lack of said skills.

Many complex arguments surround the issue of marketing to children. They are linked in with the world in which we live and the world in which we wished we live where advertising is just one way in which we discover new ways in which to be productive or pass the time. In the world in which we live, these ways often come about in ways in which advertisers wish they had control. Instead we are often left chasing the moment, trying to bend it to our will.

And in this world, more complex than we can ever imagine or control how are we supposed to find the right line to take when parents are terrified to send their children out without a mobile phone? Should the manufacturers not produce phones that are attractive to children? Would that make us better people? Would it save our children from the clutches of the Pied Piper? If only the world were that simple. If only it could be reduced to such things and then solved by a quick chat with Trevor McDonald or David Dimbleby.

Of course it can’t. And so it will continue, rightly so, to be an area that undergoes regular and detailed scrutiny. Maybe it is inevitable that advertising often finds itself at the sharp end of the commentator’s disapproval. Calls for bans on advertising, on video games, on Marilyn Manson’s music surround every anti-social act to be caught by the global news media. It becomes so automatic, so knee-jerk that it is easy to dismiss it in a similarly knee-jerk and automatic manner. Many of us, however, think about the arguments each time a new piece of business comes our way. And often the answers come in the way in which much of the advertising industry conducts itself – by talking and listening to the public. After all, what kind of advertisers would we be if we ignored the public mood? Where’s the strategy in that?. No, talking to the consumer is something we do on a daily basis – something report writers might also look into doing. Without it we would soon find ourselves existing within the sort of bubble some people might wish our children to live in.

It’s this conversation which reminds us that we are no longer in the world of the 1960’s where the Don Drapers could dazzle us with the promise of great new things simply because they were new things. This conversation with the public reminds us that each new piece of work we produce is put into context by a million different minds, each of which consume information (and advertising falls under that category) in a different way. We can create excitement, anticipation even, but to assume the power to steer society towards a dumbed-down mockery of itself – well, isn’t that what we have television for?