Every month, I hit the gym with my new Wired magazine and read it cover to cover. Even things I don't think I'll find interesting, I become engrossed in. Last month, they featured an article about new camera techniques, made possible by HD video, that allowed photographers to capture footage of animals in nature better than ever before. The techniques were used for a miniseries running now on the Discovery Channel called "Planet Earth."
If you haven't seen it, it is breathtakingly gorgeous, awe-inspiring, and simply amazing. I think it's so fantastic that we have used our awesome technology to record the wondrous beauty and fascinating complexity of our planet. Quite simply, this footage is like nothing you've never seen before.
I was giggling hysterically at the sped up footage of hundreds of gelada baboons in the Ethiopian Highlands all following the same daily agenda. My jaw hit the ground at the extremely slowed down footage of a great white shark LEAPING out of the ocean while swallowing a whole seal in a split second. And I was wowed by the aerial view of a MILLION caribou, the largest traveling pack of animals on the planet, streaming across the tundra, pursued by wolves.
It's available for pre-order at Amazon and I've already secured my copy. You can see some of the fantastic-ness in the meantime on their official site.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
It's good to be wrong
I'm on season three of The West Wing and I LOVE THIS SHOW. It's a show for smart people, about smart people. The dialogue is so quick, so sharp and filled with humor but you have to be fast to get it. One of my favorite things about the show is that these people, including the president, make mistakes.
They're passionate, opinionated and always trying to do the right thing but often they end up being wrong. But sometimes they're RIGHT. And just like you can't succeed if you don't fail, you can't be right if you're never wrong. People make mistakes because they're doing something. People afraid of failing or making a mistake, don't do anything at all. Who would you rather be?
At my last job, everyone was so afraid of making a marketing mistake. "What if we offend someone?" "What if someone doesn't get it?" "What if?" "What if?" They didn't know what was going to happen. It's not like they had done any market research or even knew their current customers well enough to know what they'd respond to but the fact is, if you don't take a chance, you won't engage anyone. You'll just have boring, innocuous advertising that no one will ever see or notice. (But you probably won't offend anyone!)
They're passionate, opinionated and always trying to do the right thing but often they end up being wrong. But sometimes they're RIGHT. And just like you can't succeed if you don't fail, you can't be right if you're never wrong. People make mistakes because they're doing something. People afraid of failing or making a mistake, don't do anything at all. Who would you rather be?
At my last job, everyone was so afraid of making a marketing mistake. "What if we offend someone?" "What if someone doesn't get it?" "What if?" "What if?" They didn't know what was going to happen. It's not like they had done any market research or even knew their current customers well enough to know what they'd respond to but the fact is, if you don't take a chance, you won't engage anyone. You'll just have boring, innocuous advertising that no one will ever see or notice. (But you probably won't offend anyone!)
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Milk Gone Wild!
OMG, this is fantastic! Only PETA could make a health statement, protest the mistreatment of animals, satire sexism, and be totally hip and kind of sexy at the same time. I agree with the user who posted that it's demented. It is, but in the best kind of way.
Friday, March 23, 2007
A girl who knows how to handle herself
I went out for drinks last night, close to my house, so I walked. Since it was night time, I walked quickly and with purpose. A young woman came out of a restaurant and walked in front of me for a while. She was thin and had on very high heels that made her whole body wobble a little. She was walking very quickly too, almost running, and her long dreadlocks seemed to be weighing her tiny body down. I heard hooting and hollering from a bunch of guys from across the street. The more they cheered, the faster she walked, stumbling and almost falling at one point before ducking into a parking garage. The moment she did, hoots of disappointment came from across the street and then silence. A foot behind, I was invisible.
I told this story to my dad and he said something about how some women walk in a very feminine way while others don't. What does that mean, feminine? Does it mean delicate or in a more vicious way, weak? Fragile? Instinctively, are men drawn to the "weaker sex," when they're easy to catch?
This scenario played out like a pack of hyenas chasing an injured antelope, struggling with a sprained ankle to keep up with the herd.
The more she hurried and stumbled, the louder their hollering. Yet they paid me no attention. True, I was marketing myself as a woman who's capable and not a victim (I didn't have a car to stumble into) but it has never had anything to do with attractiveness. From the distance they were at, she could have been a transvestite! All they saw were heels and wobble. Raaaaaowr.
I told this story to my dad and he said something about how some women walk in a very feminine way while others don't. What does that mean, feminine? Does it mean delicate or in a more vicious way, weak? Fragile? Instinctively, are men drawn to the "weaker sex," when they're easy to catch?
This scenario played out like a pack of hyenas chasing an injured antelope, struggling with a sprained ankle to keep up with the herd.
The more she hurried and stumbled, the louder their hollering. Yet they paid me no attention. True, I was marketing myself as a woman who's capable and not a victim (I didn't have a car to stumble into) but it has never had anything to do with attractiveness. From the distance they were at, she could have been a transvestite! All they saw were heels and wobble. Raaaaaowr.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Analyze THIS
A few years ago, everyone knew they need an online presence. Companies started taking their offline marketing budget and throwing it online marketing. Web agencies flourished and big ad agencies scrambled to make alliances with smaller web companies to outsource the work to.
All marketing departments were getting the directive:
Put up a website, make some banner ads, get the top search engine ranking, send some emails. "Hell, send a LOT of emails."
Last year it went more like this:
Do some promotions, put up some mini-sites, make banner ads to promote the mini-site, do viral marketing. "Hell, does anyone even know what viral marketing is?"
What marketers like about the web is that you can track user behavior. They like being able to say that a million people watched their video on YouTube. And it does indicate a higher level of interest than say, a million people seeing your billboard on Wilshire Blvd. However, it doesn't tell you much more than that. You don't know why they watched it, whether they sent it to a friend, what they said in the email to that friend, or whether (ultimately) they're more likely to be a customer.
Think of it like a car lot. You've got cars sitting there and people drive by. Sometimes they stop. Sometimes they park get out, come into the office, tell the salesman what kind of car they want to buy and actually drive off the lot with it. Would you attribute any of that behavior to your sign on the side of the road? No.
Would you want to know the background of each customer with the product - their exposure, beliefs and feelings - AND the exact details of their conversation your salesperson? The ones who bought, the ones who said they'd come back and the ones who showed no interest? Yes!
So the web has given marketers a lot of exposure and a bunch of numbers, and even some interaction. How many people just drove by. How many stopped. How many bought cars. Unfortunately, it isn't telling them very much about their marketing and they know it. Now, the marketers' bosses want to know "What's our ROI on web marketing?" because they've been told that everything can be tracked. But it's not like they could ever measure their ROI BEFORE on billboards, print ads, radio and TV commercials.
So analytics becomes very scientific. You have to form hypothesis - known as use cases - what do you think people are going to do? Track it, find out. Make educated guesses as to what's happening. Tweak it and track it again. See, analytics aren't to show ROI, analytics are to improve your offering to your customer. Analytics are what brings the marketer into the user lifecycle.
All marketing departments were getting the directive:
Put up a website, make some banner ads, get the top search engine ranking, send some emails. "Hell, send a LOT of emails."
Last year it went more like this:
Do some promotions, put up some mini-sites, make banner ads to promote the mini-site, do viral marketing. "Hell, does anyone even know what viral marketing is?"
What marketers like about the web is that you can track user behavior. They like being able to say that a million people watched their video on YouTube. And it does indicate a higher level of interest than say, a million people seeing your billboard on Wilshire Blvd. However, it doesn't tell you much more than that. You don't know why they watched it, whether they sent it to a friend, what they said in the email to that friend, or whether (ultimately) they're more likely to be a customer.
Think of it like a car lot. You've got cars sitting there and people drive by. Sometimes they stop. Sometimes they park get out, come into the office, tell the salesman what kind of car they want to buy and actually drive off the lot with it. Would you attribute any of that behavior to your sign on the side of the road? No.
Would you want to know the background of each customer with the product - their exposure, beliefs and feelings - AND the exact details of their conversation your salesperson? The ones who bought, the ones who said they'd come back and the ones who showed no interest? Yes!
So the web has given marketers a lot of exposure and a bunch of numbers, and even some interaction. How many people just drove by. How many stopped. How many bought cars. Unfortunately, it isn't telling them very much about their marketing and they know it. Now, the marketers' bosses want to know "What's our ROI on web marketing?" because they've been told that everything can be tracked. But it's not like they could ever measure their ROI BEFORE on billboards, print ads, radio and TV commercials.
So analytics becomes very scientific. You have to form hypothesis - known as use cases - what do you think people are going to do? Track it, find out. Make educated guesses as to what's happening. Tweak it and track it again. See, analytics aren't to show ROI, analytics are to improve your offering to your customer. Analytics are what brings the marketer into the user lifecycle.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Lifecycle marketing 101
Most agencies are still doing one-off marketing. We make websites! We make banners! We make ads! And even worse, companies are hiring them to do it. So you think maybe the marketing managers and brand managers hiring these agencies are thinking about integrated marketing and working these pieces into their user lifecycle. Not so. They're paying another company to produce web analytics that don't tell them anything valuable. And the agency isn't helping them! They are making decisions about whether to continue a website or campaign based on them. And the agency is letting them! They're leaving out email and letting an entirely different department make those marketing decisions. And the agency isn't stealing that business!
Selling is not a one time act. You don't knock on a person's door and convince them to buy something that they've never heard of before. Doesn't happen. They first have to read about it, hear about, see their neighbor using it, and be asked to buy it (maybe many times) before they even consider it. That's the acquisition phase.
Once they've considered it, you're in very valuable territory and this is where most marketing strategy breaks down. You have a captive audience that wants to know more (even if they aren't aware of it). All you have to do is push them past that point to convert. That's the conversion phase and it's the most crucial and the most difficult.
After that, a lot of marketing strategy disappears. We sold a widget, yay! Let's celebrate! Why stop there? Why not sell a hundred more widgets to the same person, or better yet, get THAT person to sell a hundred widgets for you by being your evangelist? That's the retention phase. All together, it's the user lifecycle.
The user lifecycle is a living growing thing that changes constantly for each customer. A marketing strategy has to be able to tailor it's approach at any given moment based on the feedback (analytics) about the consumer's behavior. Banner analytics change the website, web analytics informs email and other CRM pieces, data from those emails in turn feeds changes to the website, and the revised website dictates the content of the next round of banners. It's all interconnected. It's not easy so think BIG and start SMALL.
Selling is not a one time act. You don't knock on a person's door and convince them to buy something that they've never heard of before. Doesn't happen. They first have to read about it, hear about, see their neighbor using it, and be asked to buy it (maybe many times) before they even consider it. That's the acquisition phase.
Once they've considered it, you're in very valuable territory and this is where most marketing strategy breaks down. You have a captive audience that wants to know more (even if they aren't aware of it). All you have to do is push them past that point to convert. That's the conversion phase and it's the most crucial and the most difficult.
After that, a lot of marketing strategy disappears. We sold a widget, yay! Let's celebrate! Why stop there? Why not sell a hundred more widgets to the same person, or better yet, get THAT person to sell a hundred widgets for you by being your evangelist? That's the retention phase. All together, it's the user lifecycle.
The user lifecycle is a living growing thing that changes constantly for each customer. A marketing strategy has to be able to tailor it's approach at any given moment based on the feedback (analytics) about the consumer's behavior. Banner analytics change the website, web analytics informs email and other CRM pieces, data from those emails in turn feeds changes to the website, and the revised website dictates the content of the next round of banners. It's all interconnected. It's not easy so think BIG and start SMALL.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
When to give up
Leaving the new job yesterday, I noticed (for the first time) that I'm next door to my ex-boyfriend's work. I was thinking about how bizarre that was and thought "well, maybe he's quit that job by now." After all, it's been six months. But then I remembered, this guy couldn't even turn off a movie that he wasn't enjoying. He watched until the bitter end, no matter what.
I used to say he was "addicted to possibility." As long as there were still options, he could never make a decision. He could never say "I'm going to do this, and that's that." He would have to ask everyone for their opinion and even then, still couldn't decide. Our relationship for example: he didn't know if he loved me (even though he once thought he did) and he had to ask his dad what love was. A 34-year old man was asking his dad to tell him if he loved me! In the end, I was the one who did the leaving because I'm the opposite. I'm 100% in or I'm 100% out. Yes or no. I know what I want and I fight hard for it. But if it turns out to be the wrong thing, I'm out.
How does this relate to marketing? It reminds me that bad marketers spend all of their efforts trying to sell these people - the masses of undecided, unfocused, and unsure. They still haven't learned that most people don't make buying decisions because they don't make decisions. They emulate the people who make decisions. And that's why you sell to THOSE people. To the ones who are smart, savvy, educated and make decisions. They're a different group for every product - you have to know who they are, and you have to sell to them. Market to the unsure and you've insulted the decision-makers because they're smarter than you are.
I used to say he was "addicted to possibility." As long as there were still options, he could never make a decision. He could never say "I'm going to do this, and that's that." He would have to ask everyone for their opinion and even then, still couldn't decide. Our relationship for example: he didn't know if he loved me (even though he once thought he did) and he had to ask his dad what love was. A 34-year old man was asking his dad to tell him if he loved me! In the end, I was the one who did the leaving because I'm the opposite. I'm 100% in or I'm 100% out. Yes or no. I know what I want and I fight hard for it. But if it turns out to be the wrong thing, I'm out.
How does this relate to marketing? It reminds me that bad marketers spend all of their efforts trying to sell these people - the masses of undecided, unfocused, and unsure. They still haven't learned that most people don't make buying decisions because they don't make decisions. They emulate the people who make decisions. And that's why you sell to THOSE people. To the ones who are smart, savvy, educated and make decisions. They're a different group for every product - you have to know who they are, and you have to sell to them. Market to the unsure and you've insulted the decision-makers because they're smarter than you are.
Monday, March 19, 2007
What makes a video campaign viral?
Just started the new job I'm not afraid anymore. But I am excited! The CEO came by my desk and we chatted about video campaigns. He showed a couple of successful (in terms of views) examples in the Monday Meeting. But what makes content virally successful? Is it just the entertainment value? Or does it matter where it's hosted? Are people more likely to watch a video on YouTube than on a corporate site? While people know that they're watching professionally produced content on You Tube much of the time, I think there's a thrill in the fact that they "found" it.
One of the funniest videos I've seen is an interactive video for Coke Zero (think Subservient Chicken). I only saw it because a friend of mine is the actor in it and forwarded to me. Otherwise, I've heard nothing about it and it's never been forwarded to me. Because it's interactive, it can't be hosted on YouTube but it's amazing to me how often I see a lot of production going into a concept but the whole "viral" component is completely missing. How did they intend for this video to circulate?
I think companies think these things just magically become viral. They don't. There's too much content on the Web for things to just be found. You have to get the ball rolling yourself. Then, if it's entertaining, relevant and accessible, it might become viral. Or not. Entertainment is not an exact science and more than ever, people want to be entertained.
An example of a site with crazy functionality but very bad exposure was to advertise The Simpsons. The contest was to create a trailer for their Halloween special using provided video clips, audio effects and music. The online editor was pretty good, not terribly accurate, but good enough to hook me. I spent several hours after work one day creating my trailer. Then what? I couldn't find it. I couldn't send it to a friend to rate it. I entered my email address but never received an email! I didn't even get a notice that the contest had ended. Nothing.
Too often, companies are sold on a cool idea but someone forgets to make it relevant (see my earlier post Faking It) or viral. To see an example of simple and really effective content, check out Church Sign Generator. I first got this on Friendster (before MySpace!) several years ago and it was just the first design shown. This obviously isn't selling anything, but can you see how this concept could?
One of the funniest videos I've seen is an interactive video for Coke Zero (think Subservient Chicken). I only saw it because a friend of mine is the actor in it and forwarded to me. Otherwise, I've heard nothing about it and it's never been forwarded to me. Because it's interactive, it can't be hosted on YouTube but it's amazing to me how often I see a lot of production going into a concept but the whole "viral" component is completely missing. How did they intend for this video to circulate?
I think companies think these things just magically become viral. They don't. There's too much content on the Web for things to just be found. You have to get the ball rolling yourself. Then, if it's entertaining, relevant and accessible, it might become viral. Or not. Entertainment is not an exact science and more than ever, people want to be entertained.
An example of a site with crazy functionality but very bad exposure was to advertise The Simpsons. The contest was to create a trailer for their Halloween special using provided video clips, audio effects and music. The online editor was pretty good, not terribly accurate, but good enough to hook me. I spent several hours after work one day creating my trailer. Then what? I couldn't find it. I couldn't send it to a friend to rate it. I entered my email address but never received an email! I didn't even get a notice that the contest had ended. Nothing.
Too often, companies are sold on a cool idea but someone forgets to make it relevant (see my earlier post Faking It) or viral. To see an example of simple and really effective content, check out Church Sign Generator. I first got this on Friendster (before MySpace!) several years ago and it was just the first design shown. This obviously isn't selling anything, but can you see how this concept could?
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Not a thrill seeker, just living with fear.
Reading Seth Godin's book "The Purple Cow" made me realize that the company I was working at accepted that their product was mediocre and it would never be remarkable. It's what made it possible for me leave. I didn't give up, I just got wise. I spent eleven long months trying to make it better, trying to inspire others to make it better. All I did was open their eyes to the madness and now they're either miserable that I've left or they've left with me.
Seth Godin, in his blog, describes people as thrill seekers or fear avoiders. I start my new job on Monday and although it's not exactly what I want and it's not exactly the biggest stretch, there are things I don't know and obvious challenges ahead. I am afraid. I wouldn't categorize myself as a thrill seeker and yet I'm clearly not a fear avoider. I CHOSE FEAR. I'm someone who lives with fear and merely aspires to be a thrill seeker.
I need to be challenged and dream of working with people who are smarter than me and yet I live in fear of actually finding that situation. This might be it! (But it probably isn't. Come to think of it, I was afraid starting work at the last company and that turned out not even to be a real company.) So what am I afraid of? Someone finding out that I'm not as smart as I think I am.
Maybe I am a thrill seeker!
Seth Godin, in his blog, describes people as thrill seekers or fear avoiders. I start my new job on Monday and although it's not exactly what I want and it's not exactly the biggest stretch, there are things I don't know and obvious challenges ahead. I am afraid. I wouldn't categorize myself as a thrill seeker and yet I'm clearly not a fear avoider. I CHOSE FEAR. I'm someone who lives with fear and merely aspires to be a thrill seeker.
I need to be challenged and dream of working with people who are smarter than me and yet I live in fear of actually finding that situation. This might be it! (But it probably isn't. Come to think of it, I was afraid starting work at the last company and that turned out not even to be a real company.) So what am I afraid of? Someone finding out that I'm not as smart as I think I am.
Maybe I am a thrill seeker!
Thursday, March 15, 2007
"The smartest and most able among us..."
I heard a brilliant commentary on NPR from Ted Koppel about the Bush administration letting go the US Attorneys. It so eerily reminds me of the work situation I just got out of. The incompetent people at the top HAVE TO maintain loyalty to each other, and to the status quo, in order to keep their jobs. People like me are squeezed out in favor of less qualified people who are more likely to support them.
He starts out: "Watch out for governments that put a greater emphasis on political loyalty than they do on competence and creativity."
Imperial Life in The Emerald City, a book about the "bloated American bureaucracy" in Baghdad's green zone, talks about the "young inexperienced people given extraordinary responsibilities for only one apparent reason" their active roles in the Bush for President campaign.
Ted Koppel says: "That they were unqualified and incompetent seemed to disturb no one at the White House."
Uh-oh! This isn't some online personals company like my former job, this is our country! It's normal, he says, to give preference to one's party but when lives are at stake, we should all be worried. He draws comparison to the subject of The Lives of Others, a German film about the Secret Police listening in on people's conversations.
"Where partisanship becomes dangerous," he says, "is when it is valued over ability. When failure to follow the party line results in the rejection and dismissal of the smartest and most able among us, when key jobs are filled by people whose only qualification is political loyalty."
Replace "political" with "corporate" and you've probably described most of the corporations out there. It's fabulous, his inflection is genius and so funny. Have a listen.
He starts out: "Watch out for governments that put a greater emphasis on political loyalty than they do on competence and creativity."
Imperial Life in The Emerald City, a book about the "bloated American bureaucracy" in Baghdad's green zone, talks about the "young inexperienced people given extraordinary responsibilities for only one apparent reason" their active roles in the Bush for President campaign.
Ted Koppel says: "That they were unqualified and incompetent seemed to disturb no one at the White House."
Uh-oh! This isn't some online personals company like my former job, this is our country! It's normal, he says, to give preference to one's party but when lives are at stake, we should all be worried. He draws comparison to the subject of The Lives of Others, a German film about the Secret Police listening in on people's conversations.
"Where partisanship becomes dangerous," he says, "is when it is valued over ability. When failure to follow the party line results in the rejection and dismissal of the smartest and most able among us, when key jobs are filled by people whose only qualification is political loyalty."
Replace "political" with "corporate" and you've probably described most of the corporations out there. It's fabulous, his inflection is genius and so funny. Have a listen.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Horrific horrifying horror
I was at the video store with my dad, looking for a film to rent. Every third film, it seemed, was a horror flick. And I don't have to tell you that most of them are about pretty young women being victimized. I picked up one called Rest Stop and made the mistake of reading the back. It's, as I guessed, about a woman tortured by a sicko after stopping at a rest stop...something about a box of tools and a saw (!)
I guess what makes it so SCARY and, I shudder to say, APPEALING, is that it actually happens and women are really afraid of that. Hmmm, I wonder how often it happens. Or are women disproportionately afraid because of movies like this? Why is a woman's fear so appealing?
A few minutes later, my dad picks up the movie The Virgins of Juarez. "This is a good movie," he says, "YOU should see this." I figure that he's making reference to the fact that I'm a feminist, something he hasn't always been too supportive of. He explains that it's a true story of women (young, I imagine, since they're VIRGINS) who are abducted in Juarez, Mexico, raped repeatedly and then KILLED. Disposable sex toys?! I feel myself getting physical ill in the video store as he goes on. "Minnie Driver plays a reporter who goes down there to get the story and this girl," he says, pointing to someone on the cover, "was buried alive but manages to escape."
I'm so horrified, I don't even know what to say. Why should I see this movie? God, how sick. How awful! My brain is spinning. Who are these people? WHO abducts little girls and rapes and kills them? WHO?! Normal men just walking around decide to do this? How can a society have such a low value on the life of a woman? How can a society care so little about women living in fear?
My mom had mentioned an article in the paper that morning (it was a weekend with the parents) about a 15 year old girl who met a guy online. She agreed to meet him somewhere and was kidnapped. He and HIS FATHER kept her in their apartment for a week and raped her. FOR A WEEK! She managed to escape, apparently, and they got caught.
That night, I had a nightmare about a serial killer, a duffel bag full of warm bloody body parts in Ziploc bags, and a series of films the killer had made while killing each victim. This was a nightmare because I was in charge of solving these crimes and had to watch the movies. I couldn't sleep for two nights afterwards.
So, the other day I was at the beach, on the walking path. Every time I heard someone behind me I jumped a little, startled. I notice that other women do it too, when they're approached. I saw a couple of guys laughing at a woman who was startled by them. Does a man even know what it's like to feel like a potential victim walking around? Sure, sure, it's a state of mind. BULLSHIT. With so much real violence against women, why do we need fictional violence?
Let me ask a question. Why is it that fictional terror is entertainment while the real terror is a challenging think piece? For example, Blood Diamond featured little boys getting body parts hacked off. COOL! Last King of Scotland is about a dictator who was a mass murderer...way better than Zodiac. That guy wasn't even REALLY a serial killer. Or what about The Virgins of Juarez? I mean, isn't that right up horror alley? Can someone explain this to me?
I guess what makes it so SCARY and, I shudder to say, APPEALING, is that it actually happens and women are really afraid of that. Hmmm, I wonder how often it happens. Or are women disproportionately afraid because of movies like this? Why is a woman's fear so appealing?
A few minutes later, my dad picks up the movie The Virgins of Juarez. "This is a good movie," he says, "YOU should see this." I figure that he's making reference to the fact that I'm a feminist, something he hasn't always been too supportive of. He explains that it's a true story of women (young, I imagine, since they're VIRGINS) who are abducted in Juarez, Mexico, raped repeatedly and then KILLED. Disposable sex toys?! I feel myself getting physical ill in the video store as he goes on. "Minnie Driver plays a reporter who goes down there to get the story and this girl," he says, pointing to someone on the cover, "was buried alive but manages to escape."
I'm so horrified, I don't even know what to say. Why should I see this movie? God, how sick. How awful! My brain is spinning. Who are these people? WHO abducts little girls and rapes and kills them? WHO?! Normal men just walking around decide to do this? How can a society have such a low value on the life of a woman? How can a society care so little about women living in fear?
My mom had mentioned an article in the paper that morning (it was a weekend with the parents) about a 15 year old girl who met a guy online. She agreed to meet him somewhere and was kidnapped. He and HIS FATHER kept her in their apartment for a week and raped her. FOR A WEEK! She managed to escape, apparently, and they got caught.
That night, I had a nightmare about a serial killer, a duffel bag full of warm bloody body parts in Ziploc bags, and a series of films the killer had made while killing each victim. This was a nightmare because I was in charge of solving these crimes and had to watch the movies. I couldn't sleep for two nights afterwards.
So, the other day I was at the beach, on the walking path. Every time I heard someone behind me I jumped a little, startled. I notice that other women do it too, when they're approached. I saw a couple of guys laughing at a woman who was startled by them. Does a man even know what it's like to feel like a potential victim walking around? Sure, sure, it's a state of mind. BULLSHIT. With so much real violence against women, why do we need fictional violence?
Let me ask a question. Why is it that fictional terror is entertainment while the real terror is a challenging think piece? For example, Blood Diamond featured little boys getting body parts hacked off. COOL! Last King of Scotland is about a dictator who was a mass murderer...way better than Zodiac. That guy wasn't even REALLY a serial killer. Or what about The Virgins of Juarez? I mean, isn't that right up horror alley? Can someone explain this to me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)