A Tale of Two Books

Consider the opening lines of two books written a century apart about the Italian Renaissance. They vigorously demonstrate how the style of popular historians has changed from pseudo-academic lecturing to one that seeks to involve the reader with the sights, sounds and smells of an era, albeit one that is largely manufactured in the author's own imagination. The other difference between the two books is that only the former is available for the kindle, perhaps because it is an out of copywrite "classic". I know which one I want to read.

Jacob Burckhardt "The Civilisation of the Renaissance"
"This work bears the title of an essay in the strictest sense of the
the word. No one is more conscious than the writer with what limited
means and strength he has addressed himself to a task so arduous...zzzz"

JH.Plumb "The Italian Renaissance"
"The face of medieval Europe was scarred with the ruins of its past. In
Rome itself, the Colosseum housed the barbarous Frangipani and their
armed retainers, greedy, lawless, destructive; the Forum provided a
quarry for churches and rough pasture for the cattle market, and
beneath the broken columns of the temple of Castor and Pollux the
bullocks awaited their slaughter."

Three's a Crowd

Estimating the number of people at any march or event with political overtones is a thankless task for the police who these days usually just give into the organisers inflated figures to keep the peace. After all does it really matter if 10,000 people or 30,000 people attended a rally? I once considered setting up an company which would independently estimate the numbers attending rallies and marches and charge the organisers for being able to provide reliable figures. Then I realised the flaw in this plan. The organisers have no interest in a reliable estimate. From their point of view the more the merrier.

In fact ever since Jesus claimed to have fed 5000 people with enough food for 50 the controversies have raged. The organisers of the Million Man March in Washington DC in 1995 estimated that 1.5-2m people attended whereas the D.C. Park Service estimated 837,000 (+-20%) based on aerial photographs. Amid claims of racism and threats to sue the Park Service never provided estimates of marcher numbers ever again. But they stuck to their original estimate nonetheless.

One such figure I have been a bit obsessed with for years is the Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardis Gras. The attendance figure at the parade has been variously quoted as between 300,000 and 1 million people (the latter in the heady days of the pre-Howard government Gay-B-C). It seems to have settled down to 400,000 this year.

I happen to think its relatively easy to come up with a ball park figure in this case. The Mardi Gras Parade route is about 1500m long. If you allow 2 spectators per metre (remember gay people are thinner so can more easily bunch up) on each side then this is 6000 people at the front of the parade. Based on photos I have seen in the thickest parts of the parade (in terms of numbers, not where the people from Newtown stand) the crowd is about 20 deep and about 10 deep in others so lets say 15 deep on average on both sides. So thats 15 x 2 x 2 x 1500 = 90,000 people. Allowing for various late arrivals and a generous margin for error lets say 120,000. Far less than the 400,000 claimed by the organisers. In fact for the organisers figure to be accurate would require the crowd to be over 50 deep on either side.

Of course it would be churlish of anyone to play into the hands of the bigots and contradict the official figure. Even the police are avowedly on the side of the participants. Yes it would take a brave blogger indeed to stand up, to count and be counted (even a gay one like yours truly).

Omerta and a Question of Loyalty

Loyalty Cards are a modern plague. I remember years ago working on American Express's loyalty program and thinking noone would be stupid enough to fall for such an obvious ploy. After all why would they give something away unless they expected to get more back and if everyone had identical loyalty programs it would be the consumer who would foot the bill.

How wrong I was and loyalty programs infect all levels of commerce now. Supermarket loyalty cards are particularly pernicious as it not just possible to avoid them by not getting one. Everytime you shop you will be asked if you have one. In the UK (but not yet Australia) it is not just enough to fail to answer: "Do you have a Tescoes card?" in the affirmative (Surely if you ask me a question unrelated to the commercial transaction we are undertaking I have a right to ignore your personal questions and you can take that as a "no" if you wish). They will continue to ask you even if you try any of the following (which I have) (a) ignore them, (b) pretend your iPod is on high and you cant hear them, (c) really, really ignore them. I wondered about this and eventually asked one of the regular cashiers at my local Tesco whom I had been in a war of attrition with for several years. Sometimes he took my prolonged silence as a "no" and sometimes I gave in after repeated questioning and aswered explicitly. I am sure it was wearying for both of us. And the answer: I was shocked to discover that the cashiers are paid a (derisory) bonus of a couple of hundred pounds a year to try to get customers to sign up and Tesco sends in secret operatives to check that they dont just take silence as a no.

Why would they care so much? Because saying "no" everytime is a negative response and most people prefer to avoid being negative. The ironic thing is that supermarket loyalty cards arent actually designed to increase loyalty through rewards. As I correctly surmised all those years ago this is a zero sum game. What the supermarket really wants is a database of your shopping purchases so they can target you with offers aimed at increasing your share-of-wallet. What is wrong with this you ask? Well like any private data is it is yours to give freely and coercing you into signing up for a loyalty program by harassing you at the till everytime you buy something is extremely unethical.

I often fantasised about wearing a t-shirt I could point at when asked that just said "No I dont have a fucking Tescoe's card".

Pump it Out

Coca Cola Amatil has a new soft-drink called "Pumped". I can't quite reproduce that since the "Pump" and "ed" are in different colours. I saw this on the side of a bus which beats surgical cancer scars for a change. I also read the smallprint which was that CCA had trademarked the words"Pump" and "Pumped". Given that this flavoured lolly water is hardly likely to revolutionise the densely packed space of soft-drinks it is safe to assume that all the cost will go into advertising and legal battles to rightfully reclaim the word "pumped" from unliscensed general usuage and return it to Coke - its now rightful owners.

Sitch Bank?

Which bank released one-page ads in the weekend press stating that they would suspend interest payments for householders affected by the Victorian bushfires?

So why then did the ads appear in the national press if they were aimed solely at Victorians? To maximise positive coverage out of a natural disaster. Surely not.

Bushfire Survivor - Who Stays and Who Goes - You Decide.

Commercial news coverage of the bushfires in Australia have all the hallmarks of a branding exercise based on reality tv production values. I wouldn't be suprised if the following are happening:

• production assistants interviewing survivors and firefighters for suitable stories
• survivors auditioning to have their stories told
• editorial meetings where potential stories are discussed and shortlisted
• in depth interviews arranged with network talking heads
• test audience to provide feedback to select final stories for evening broadcast

The purpose of news programs is not just to provide advertising revenue but as a platform for brand loyalty by emphasising the fake values of the monolithic corporate behemoth like "trust", "reliability", "family values" and "entertainment". Disasters and celebrity funerals seem to provide the perfect platform for reinforcing these values and building brand loyalty during the long lean times of the early stages of the football season.

Foxtel Drops the Ball

Foxtel are tailoring their overpriced cable packages to fit these straightened times. An ad on tv last night showed a Foxtel person appearing at the door of a couple.

He: you know Lucy we agreed to tighten our belts. [holds out oversized trousers, cue laugh track]
She: [looks sheepish] well it's not as much as you think, Ricky
He: [getting angry] Well how much is it?
She: The first month is free and it's only a 12 month contract. [recoils from expected slap]

Now wait a darn minute - how is that an answer to his question? It reminds me of an episode of I Love Lucy where Lucille Ball buys a new sofa without asking her husband, Ricky's, permission and he is understandably apoplectic that she has done something so transgressive and emasculating so when he asks how much it costs she replies "not nearly as much as the golf clubs you bought last month" at which point he, predictably, flies into a rage, and threatens to kill her thus subverting the dominant masculine/submissive female discourse through the use of performative clowning, a laugh track and the ironic use of the phrase "why I outta...". Maybe the Foxtel ad writers are paying homage to this classic feminist 50s sitcom.

Or answer (b) it could be because of the confusion that reigns in the Foxtel universe. The small print at the end of the ad said $440 which is $40/month for 11 months. On the other hand a flyer which fell out of my Sunday newspaper said $800 for 12 months. Their website says $440.