Cooney's Commentary

Not surprised by their actions…. and I love reading tasteful  PR messages, Accenture’s PR film must have been strategizing for a bit about how best to handle this. We didn’t cover that type of scenario in the Crisis Communication workshop, but maybe Mr. Cowen will add it in now ; )

I can see why Gilette might cut him some slack, since Gilette is a consumer product and there are probably some cheating husbands who need to shave) but in my opinion Accenture did the right thing. It will be interesting to where the other companies fall…. I would think the higher end companies will be following suit…. since at least for the next year or two, til he polishes up his reputation. The man doesn’t really need to work at all anymore anyway…. according to Forbes, he’s worth an estimated $600 million.

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/12/14/accenture-terminates-sponsorship-with-tiger-woods/

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/06/richest-black-americans-busienss-billionaires-richest-black-americans.html

The firms that hired Tiger Woods as a spokesman wisely pulled all their advertising for the foreseeable future. I always thought it was bit strange that he had so many sponsorship gigs…. Gillette, Nike, Gatorade, Electronic Arts,  AT&T, Tag Heuer and Accenture. I was always most surprised Accenture used him as a spokeperson – when I think about Accenture, I imagine teams of people working to solve client’s problems. I never thought a solo athlete conveyed the right message, but obviously some marketing folks disagree.

Its amazing to me that he didn’t have enough sense to weigh the risks associated with his extracurricular activities against the damage to his personal brand. Certainly its questionable that we put any individual on a pedestal, especially an athlete, (sorry but I am so bored by most sports). But when you agree to become a spokesman, people are paying you for a perception – a positive perception. He has so much at stake financially, and that doesn’t even touch how this will affect his family.

His image transformed from conveying excellence to being an embarrassing cliche.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/09/news/companies/tiger_woods_commercials/index.htm?cnn=yes

Hey gang, I’m posting another tidbit related to my paper. From the National Human Genome Research Institute here’s the page that provides guidelines against genetic discrimination. This is to prevent folks from being discriminated against – by health insurance companies and employers. Its good to see that this kind of protection is in place, but its not a perfect guarantee that will eliminate discrimination.

http://www.genome.gov/10002328

Taking a break from the paper writing, I found a site with older images, some of them pre film. Of course, I focused on the ghost one. The way the site is built, I can’t provide a link to exactly what I am looking at, I think you’ll have to click the “Pre-Cinema” heading on the left nav bar, hopefully you’ll find a section with the title The Ghost in the Theatre: Pepper’s Ghost effect.

http://www.visual-media.be/

Anyway, this page describes how this Pepper fellow created a convincing visual effect that made it look like an apparition had appeared. Interestingly enough, the TV show the Mentalist actually just featured this contraption in one of its shows this year. A murder occurred in an old house and it was equipped with the apparatus to create this illusion. An image of a (live) person is projected upon a sheet of glass, but the glass is positioned in a way that you can see the reflection of the person, but you don’t notice the glass itself. The movie the Illuisionist used a similar gimick, but I don’t believe they ever showed how that effect was created… now we know!

This must have been a great scam to run in the 19th century, when folks were holding seances, etc. I bet Elkins would have a field day with this!

Since I refer to Baudrillard a bit in my paper, I’ve revisiting the Simulcra and Simulation text from earlier this semester. One thing that really jumped out at me, was his discussion of the Lascaux caves. (Flusser mentions them somewhere too, I’ll see if I can find the reference – clearly they all just read each others work, and then go back and forth with their discourse!) Apparently people aren’t allowed in the real cave anymore, so “an exact replica was constructed 500 meters from it, so that everyone could see them (one glances through a peephole at the authentic cave and then one visits the reconstituted whole)….the duplication suffices to render both artificial” (Baudrillard, p. 9).

Earlier he states, “science itself as become pure simulation” (Baudrillard, p. 8). I wonder if part of the scientific problem is that they are trying essentially stop time – or stop the decay of organic beings. Nothing truly is meant to remain static – so although I thoroughly enjoy visits to the Franklin Institute, or other museums of Natural History, what we’re really seeing is “unnatural present”. This is however, one of the methods we use in our process of learning – if we can’t see, touch, its harder to comprehend what is in front of us. I’m not sure we can avoid it, or should want to.

P.S. I’m still amused that the Wachowski brothers included his book in the first Matrix movie. Back in ‘99 when I first saw the movie, I was not familiar with the title… and didn’t realize it was a real book.

Scientific America posted a podcast, and transcript. In this edition, SA spoke with a scientist who’s studying alcoholism and how genes might play a role in this. I found this article interesting for a few reasons – first off, in addition to the standard gene analysis – draw blood from a bunch of folks, and then check out their DNA, the scientists also perform brain scans to see how the brains function with and without alcohol. It got me thinking of Flusser’s apparatuses…. because they use electroencephalagram (EEGs) to see the brain waves. The EEG monitors the electrical impulses of the brain. The impulse creates a pattern that has meaning for the neurologist who reviews it. Our mind is still largely a “black box” but engineers are inventing ways for us to “see” inside. I also think back to Elkin’s book, particulary Chapter 2 where he shows examples of the scientic images.

You can almost visualize how our genes working in concert with our environment and our behaviour create these pathways … and for some folks, it will lead to alcoholism. Just because we have genetic predisposition towards something doesn’t not guarantee that we will express the gene, but it looks like they are making the case for why we might be predisposed to doing something even though it won’t be good for us.

One more reason for everyone to think about what they eat/drink and how it affects their mind and body. Bonus, I was able to incorporate a little yoga philosophy into the mix!

www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=98D29C91-E7F2-99DF-310D5D545B29FF8A

I will be including this in my final paper – but figured I’d share this with you all here. I knew I’d probably see it in my lifetime, but it arrived sooner than I thought it would. Wired magazine reported some doctor was providing parents the capability to pick the embryo they wanted based on hair and eye color. While I can see wanting to avoid say, bad eyesight, or something more serious, like a heart issue, I think its kind of freaky they focused on the superficial stuff. I realize, that is also probably easier to figure out those things, genetics-wise, as opposed to what makes one’s heart weak, etc. but still why do we still value the external more than the internal?  I try to take joy in the variety of my family tree!

www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate

And I think we have every right to be worried about how this technology/capability is applied….