Dum-Dum Bullets
It has long been a role of the arts to hold up a critical mirror to society. In uncertain times, where so many things that we should hold dear are in potential jeopardy, we feel obliged to evaluate and critique, ideas that we find to be harmful or unproductive in nature.
These ideas could be as simple as 'influencers' peddling nonsense to young creatives, marketeers promoting 'content' over meaningful communications through to the propagation of dangerous social and political agendas.
CRITICISM IS GOOD
This is about developing ideas and its happening in real time, here and on social media. There is no universal right and also, no wrong. All we really have is our ability to develop our ideas and convince others that they could be useful. These ideas become stronger when they confronted with criticism and adapt to become more fit for purpose. They may drastically change or be discarded as they fail to prove themselves. We invite you to engage with us on social media and discuss the development of these ideas (as well as your own) and examine the ways that we can communicate them across our cultures.
#DUMDUM
Expanding bullets were given the name Dum-dum, or dumdum, after an early British prototype produced in the Dum Dum Arsenal, near Calcutta, India. Expanding bullets, also known colloquially as dumdum bullets, are projectiles designed to expand on impact. This project is a critique of certain social media ‘content’, behaviour and communications. It is hoped that any shots to the metaphorical head, expand the conversation. Social media posts linked to this project will carry the #DUMDUM hashtag.
“I hear the roar of a big machine
Two worlds and in between
Love lost
Fire at will
Dum-dum bullets and shoot to kill
I hear dive bombers and
Empire down
Empire down”
THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
Our battleground for this debate will be social media platforms. Most platforms have mechanisms to post video or images and then the opportunity to add text. This is often accompanied by hashtags. Hashtags are used as the vehicle to find posts related to a subject. Posts are usually related back to a profile. These platforms are usually free to use.
Can these platforms be used differently? Are we worshipping the algorithms and following the prescribed commandments as we fail to consider how things could be better? Do we have to play along and if that is the case, wont we spend all of our time and energy doing that rather than criticising it? How will things change if we all carry on in the same way, where the only difference is the flavour of the ‘content’?
These are the front facing tools and they are simple to use. We are examining the nature of these platforms and choose how we behave. The only constrains we have, we largely impose ourselves. If our communications hit a given tripwire, then the account could be banned. In that situation we may decide to create another account.
We’d like to think that this sits in a removed framework from ‘trolling’, ‘toxicity’ and ‘safe spaces’ and falls within the sphere of cultural criticism and debate. We could be deceiving ourselves. That’s for you to decide.
We know that each new generation of tools has its own characteristics. Our tools have never had their own agenda. A shovel didn’t want to dig up a given amount of soil a day. A pen didn’t feed back on the success of your letter and your letter wasn’t peer reviewed by people that you will never meet, across the globe. It seems that we have more to think about than we ever have but at a time when we are more distracted than we’ve ever been.
If a post or advert is put online on a social media platform then it comes with certain propositions. There is a way to signal positively with a like. What does this mean? does it signal interest in the ideas presented, the creator of the work or interest from the viewer? If some is talking about their business and there is the chance to comment and this media is ‘social’ what are the parameters for the conversation? Is the viewer invited to break down and discuss the viability of the business as they see it? Should they feedback on their understanding of the success of this kind of advertising? Are the lines blurred between promotion and the recording of day-to-day activity? How aware are we of that strategy and the implications for human behaviour?
We will take the view that everything and anything is up for discussion regardless of current norms. This means that any post promoting an idea or business, is an open invitation for productive criticism.
We will only be able to entertain the idea of development and change with our media if we examine it from the top down. We need to decide if it is our media- the means that we choose to communicate or if we are products within it, that should behave in certain ways. It may be that Critical Theory turns towards social media and this could be a precursor to that but in the mean time, we might argue that there is a long established tradition of cultural critique.
HIERARCHIES
We will take the stance that there is a very real structural hierarchy and that cultural communications should be aware of that. We will start with the planet. Then human survival. Then our cultural, political and social systems. Then our industries and their brands and their marketing. Finally we end with a individual- their chosen career and their potential for meaning and happiness within the framework above. An example of this might be an individual receiving dopamine hits from ‘likes’ on social media as they promote a greenwashing campaign that could cause harm to our planet. Social media encourages us to forget the pragmatic realities that we could use to develop priorities and replaces them with agenda-laden algorithms requiring aligned human behaviours.
ROLEPLAYING HUMANS
Algorithms encourage conflict and rewards are superficial, encouraging us to act in curious ways as we interact online. This is coupled with received wisdom within the marketing community that turns the ways that we generate ideas and then from this, generate communications, upside down. ‘Tone of Voice’ is a phrase that is now common place and focuses on how communications ‘feel’. The way our communication feels used to directly relate to it’s intent. This had defined our communications for millennia and its very involved. But something changed. The idea that meaning and intent is not only, not important, but should not even be considered, takes us to a very strange place. Chat GTP and other predictive text systems are often used as enablers that help to fabricate this ‘content’.
We are finding, through online conversations that marketeers and those wishing to promote themselves often know very little about the subjects that they purport to cover. When questioned about the meaning of their words, many will become very uncomfortable. It does appear that genuine conversations about the nature of ideas now only take up a small percentage of the communications that are pitched as idea conversations.
INTEGRITY
Being seen to be an informed, professional, aware, connected, employable, secret-sauce-holding idea expert, is much more important than genuine expertise. We would argue that an individuals ability to develop knowledge, skills and integrity is diminished when presented with these superficial goal posts. We will examine the idea of ‘integrity’ in play, from many angles. We might discuss an ethical dilemma in industry but also examine the structural integrity of a concept going from the initial idea to an eventual outcome such as an advert or claim of knowledge.
It seems absolutely acceptable for us to mark the change from an older platform for advertising like a billboard that has no elements of interaction to a platform that encourages interaction. We are used to a passive intrusion on our sense with a traditional ad but limit ourselves when we have the chance to discuss one of these ads. Our stance: any promotional material presented in a social media context is presenting itself- the company or individual behind it and the promotion, for critique.
EXPECTED LOSES
This is a research and development project focused on the nature of the Marketing community as it communicates on social media. We will poke it with a stick and observe the things that crawl out from beneath it’s shadow. We will be critical and in doing so, suggest context. When there is a community that is fond of phrases like ‘thinking outside the box’, how might they feel when a specific box is described? Do they actually perceive it? Would they prefer that it wasn’t mentioned? It’s apparent that we are coming at this with some prejudice. We are. We do believe that certain behaviours and perspectives are damaging and we are critical of them. Let’s see how it all plays out…
IS THIS MARKETING?
No and…yes. We feel compelled to criticise the contemporary state of play. We would do that on social media, regardless of benefit. We work in this field and are constantly disappointed by the behaviour and self serving advice of some marketeers. It doesn’t have to be this way. The opportunities that our contemporary set of media tools offer us is staggering and we see this empowerment made manifest across our screens. But there is a cost to human agency when we accept, without question, that the code that these tools run on, wants to manipulate us.
We have to come back to our own hierarchy. We feel compelled to take actions like this, because we believe that it is the right thing to do. We may make enemies, we make make friends. We may end up working with someone as a result of one of these cultural bullets hitting the right person at the right time. If that happens, we could say it’s marketing as we end up selling a service. Regardless of that potential, this project is focused on investigation. An investigation into the nature of contemporary marketing.
UPDATE: WHAT IS OUR EXPERIENCE SO FAR?
To draw certain substantive conclusions would require an in-depth set of surveys that produced quality data around certain behaviours. This isn’t that. This is an examination of communication within the Marketing industry from the point of view of those inhabiting this world. An examination of received wisdom and working practices linked to industry concepts.
We believe that we are almost exclusively engaging with intelligent, educated, media-savvy individuals. Unless we delve into the bowls of more exclusive communities then this is probably to be expected.
The pattern does seem to be that the priorities for posters are self promotion of some kind. There seems to be rules of conduct that are taken for granted. We might call this a ‘Culture of Content Creation’. There is a belief that there is a unique ‘essence’ that exists for each individual and that this is also available to a business or organisation. This quickly translates into ‘brand’ and brand is what you need to communicate effectively. There is an idea that this is ‘unlocked’, that it exists in a metaphorical DNA. The building blocks of this ideas DNA are ‘values’. We value values and values are valuable are monetary and cultural currency and they are essentially the same thing. Or one is required for another. Something like that.
Communicating these values, a ‘value proposition’ comes next. If we can just manage to communicate this, then success is the next step. Success is defined as that thing that validates your values. Your life, your brand, centred around those values is supported financially to flourish and then thrive.
It’s all very wholesome isn’t it? It’s the American Dream. But we know that these systems have their faults and there are casualties. There is good data for the affects of social media on young people. If Critical Theory turns its gaze on SM as an entity in itself, it might deal with inequities relating to power but we are interested in the integrity of ideas and their communication as part of a community that holds responsibility for the actual communications.
Back to ‘content’. The general stance is that post commenting should fit within certain rules. Posts will often have very obvious, bland proclamations like: ‘don’t force creativity’. The viewer scrolling past a sea of neverending posts is expected to hit a ‘like’ icon if this post resonates with them. The bar is incredibly low but it is expected that this is the norm and that’s okay. The nature of what ‘resonates’ and why is quite primal (for want of a better word) and would probably overlap with the human version of a dog wagging it’s tail.
Comments that endorse the post for it’s profound or more likely, inane positivity are the expectation. If you experience any thoughts or emotions out of this range, then you continue to scroll. There is no record of more sophisticated ideas. There is no mechanism that can highlight a desire for change. This system rewards the superficial and even though the mechanisms for ANY conversation are present, we, as humans have decided that this is a step too far.
Is any of this news? Probably not. But it is very rarely discussed within the available conversational mechanisms of social media. We are seeing very little behaviour that questions the system. We are seeing those that push the system to the limit for themselves and on behalf of their lucky (or discerning) clients. Advertising continues to push the boundaries as it finds itself on new media platforms. But this activity is usually confined to the creation of assets rather than any social aspect that isnt manipulative in nature.
It might be useful to break things down and look at these components afresh. Whatever the ‘content’, there is usually a mechanism available for discussion. We might have more power than we realise and we might be able to discuss more things and in broader terms. We might find that positive change can come from within, from us. Is it unreasonable to imagine the ways that we could develop a potential check list for change if we discussed it and defined it? We might more freely acknowledge that we are setting rules for ourselves and these rules encourage us to be a little less human that we need to be. If we value individuality, why do we act like a pack? Is there a space that we could develop that ignores ‘trolling’ at one end and banality at the other and more closely resembles productive cultural criticism?
We do not need to be poltergeists, haunting our media, content to hurl ‘content’ around our virtual spaces. We could be more present with more tangible aspects of our humanity at play.