When photo retoucher Becci Manson went to Japan to help with tsunami relief, she wasn't expecting to use her professional skills. But, like Deborah Rodriguez of the famous Kabul Beauty School (discussed in The Substance of Style), she discovered that people in dire straits often want more than food, shelter, and clothing. In this case, they wanted their old photos saved. From an article telling her story on the Creativity website:
Originally, she was slated to be in Tohoku for three weeks, helping with evacuations, food, shelter and clothing. But people were bringing in cameras and photographs they found among the piles and piles of debris everywhere. So Manson started to hand-clean them.
When Manson realized how much there was to be done, she got on Facebook and asked if there was anybody who might want to help. "Overnight, there was tons of enthusiasm," she said. "I really realized then what we could do."
In June, Manson returned to the U.S., grabbed some equipment, made a few more contacts, and went back to Japan, deciding that she would stay until All Hands had to pack up and leave.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 21, 2012 • Comments
Here's an interesting article on a problem for Amazon customers: "genuine" replacement parts that aren't. Perhaps because Amazon's Marketplace has grown so large, a lot of phony claims have slipped in--including ones on products actually fulfilled by Amazon.
The good news in all instances – and not coincidentally Amazon's ultimate defense – is that Amazon was willing to take everything back and pay return shipping. The not-Canon toner cartridge went back (repurchased at Costco), the Lenovo battery went back (ordered later from NewEgg.com) and the faux Dirt Devil filters, which I kept, led to an accepted offer of a $10 promotional credit to cover the price difference.
Was I satisfied? Yes. Was I happy?
You can guess the answer to that. This sort of "voice" criticism is as important as the "exit" to other sellers, and, judging from the comments, Amazon needs more of it on this subject. Too few customers are using the quality control mechanisms described in the comments by honest sellers.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on March 21, 2012 • Comments
I rarely post here any more (see me on Google+, Facebook, and @vpostrel on Twitter), but this video on one of FIRE's most ridiculous cases ever is too good not to share.
It makes an eloquent case for FIRE's work--and it features Neil Gaiman.
FIRE is also sponsoring a contest, with $500 prizes, for the best Tweet about the video. Go here for details.
To support FIRE's work with a tax-deductible contribution, go here.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on January 21, 2012 • Comments
When David Shipley first talked to me about becoming a columnist for Bloomberg View, I asked him which of my many interests he wanted me to write about: economics? policy? design? culture? He basically replied "everything." Hence, my most recent columns are on policy--the de facto federal ban on incandescent light bulbs--and cultural history--the auction of a treasure trove of Hollywood costumes. Here are the leads:
If you want to know why so many Americans feel alienated from their government, you need only go to Target and check out the light bulb aisle. Instead of the cheap commodities of yesteryear, you'll find what looks like evidence of a flourishing, technology-driven economy.
There are "ultrasoft" bulbs promising "softer soft white longer life" light, domed halogens for "bright crisp light" and row upon row of Energy Smart bulbs -- some curled in the by-now- familiar compact fluorescent form, some with translucent shells that reveal only hints of the twisting tubes within.
It seems to be a dazzling profusion of choice. But, at least in California, where I live, this plenitude no longer includes what most shoppers want: an inexpensive, plain-vanilla 100-watt incandescent bulb. Selling them is now illegal here. The rest of the country has until the end of the year to stock up before a federal ban kicks in. (I have a stash in storage.) Over the next two years, most lower-wattage incandescents will also disappear.
This is not how the story was supposed to go. When compact fluorescent light bulbs were new, promoters sold them as a market-oriented, win-win proposition. They were like "lite" beer: the same great illumination, for a fraction of the electric bill.
But, as with beer, not everyone was convinced. Some consumers didn't like the high out-of-pocket cost. (A basic CFL runs about three times the initial price of the equivalent incandescent.) Some didn't like that bulbs could take a while to build up to full intensity.
We should never again hear anyone declare that Marilyn Monroe was a size 12, a size 14 or any other stand-in for full-figured, zaftig or plump. Fifteen thousand people have now seen dramatic evidence to the contrary. Monroe was, in fact, teeny-tiny.
The 15,000 were the visitors who turned out over eight days to oooh and aaah at the preview exhibit for the June 18 auction of Debbie Reynolds's extraordinary collection of Hollywood costumes, props and other memorabilia.
The two comments heard most often in the crowded galleries were (to paraphrase), "Wow, they were thin" and "It's such a shame. These things should be in a museum."
The two remarks are in fact related. The former demonstrates the truth of the latter.
When the auctioneer's final hammer came down at 1:20 in the morning, the world lost a treasure. The collection Reynolds assembled over 40 years will now be fragmented and dispersed. "It was a melancholy day for Los Angeles and the rest of the country," wrote Christian Esquevin on his Silver Screen Modiste blog, expressing a common sentiment. "We will never see the likes of this collection again."
The movie business has never particularly valued its historical artifacts. Hollywood, notes director John Landis, treats costumes and props as "industrial waste," to be recycled or discarded but not displayed or preserved. It also keeps an embarrassed distance from the enthusiasts who treasure such relics. Unlike, say, science fiction, the mainstream movie industry doesn't embrace cult followings. And Los Angeles is notorious for its paucity of institution-building philanthropists.
To receive emailed links to my columns and occasional other news, send an email to [email protected]. You can follow me on Twitter @vpostrel (and @deepglamour). I also treat my Facebook page as a mini-blog and accept most friend requests (though not friend suggestions).
Posted by Virginia Postrel on June 24, 2011 • Comments
In my first column for Bloomberg View, where I'll be appearing every other Friday, I compare "The Oprah Winfrey Show" to two other media phenomena that also debuted in 1986: Spy magazine and the American Girl line of dolls and books. Here's the opening:
In her 25 years hosting her eponymous show, Oprah Winfrey changed lives, most notably her own, but she did not change American culture. Rather, she revived and extended an old American phenomenon: the tradition of middlebrow self-improvement that many observers assumed had died in the anti-authority turmoil of the 1960s. While anything but radical, this achievement was nonetheless remarkable.
To understand its significance, positive and negative, consider two other media institutions that also debuted in 1986. The first is Spy magazine, defunct since 1998. Enormously influential, particularly in New York media circles, Spy pioneered the snobby, snarky cynicism that many writers under 50 still equate with sophistication. Spy did change the culture.
Both Spy and "The Oprah Winfrey Show" sold gossip and personal stories. Both made their audiences feel like members of a club of superior people. Both were self-congratulatory. But the bases for their self-congratulation were, of course, very different. Spy and its audience prided themselves on being wised-up, clever and edgy; Oprah and her audience on being empathetic, optimistic and resilient. If "Oprah" was about uplift, Spy was about putting people in their place.
Winfrey was one of the magazine's earliest targets. A profile in Spy's third issue mocked her weight, her "poodlish starlet's existence," her exuberance and her frank yearning to be rich and famous. Calling her a "binge dreamer," author Bill Zehme compared her to the delusional, self-dramatizing Norma Desmond of "Sunset Boulevard."
I have ended my WSJ column and will be writing for Bloomberg View when it debuts in late May. To receive links to my articles and other info on my work, you can subscribe to my email list by sending an email to [email protected].
Posted by Virginia Postrel on April 24, 2011 • Comments
You can see the other videos by scrolling down the page here.
I think the dynamic described in the talk, and in Colin Campbell's book, is a real one. But I don't believe that all consumption is disillusioning. Although any given artifact may, as Henry Petroski's work on innovation suggests, provide ideas for improvements, that doesn't mean we don't enjoy it. And, of course, some products actually provide even more enjoyment than expected, which may be one reason the iPad is selling so well.
(discussed in The Substance of Style), she discovered that people in dire straits often want more than food, shelter, and clothing. In this case, they wanted their old photos saved. From an article telling her story on the Creativity website:
