Conocimiento común

Nombre legal: Twitchell, James Buell
Fecha de nacimiento: 1943
Género: male
Educación: UNC-Chapel Hill (Ph.D)
Biografía breve: James Twitchell is Professor of English and Advertising. He received his PhD from UNC-Chapel Hill and has been at Florida since 1972. He has written The Living Dead: The Vampire in Romantic Literature (1980), Romantic Horizons: Aspects of the Sublime in English Poetry and Painting 1770–1850 (1983), Dreadful Pleasures: An Anatomy of Modern Horror (1985), Forbidden Partners: The Incest Taboo in Modern Culture (1987), Preposterous Violence: Fables of Aggression in Modern Culture (1989), Carnival Culture: The Trashing of Taste in America (1992), Adcult USA: The Triumph of Advertising in America (1995), For Shame: The Loss of Common Decency in American Culture (1997), Lead Us Into Temptation: The Triumph of American Materialism (1999), Twenty Ads That Shook The World: The Century’s Most Groundbreaking Advertising (2000), Living It Up: America’s Love Affair With Luxury (2002), Branded Nation: The Marketing of Megachurch, College Inc., and Museumworld (2004), Where Men Hide (2006, with photos by Ken Ross), and Shopping for God: How Christianity Went from In Your Heart to In Your Face (2007).

http://web.english.ufl.edu/faculty/jt...

Miembros

Reseñas

Twenty Ads That Shook the World: The Century's Most… por James Twitchell

Like it or not, commercial speech -- advertising -- makes up most of what we share as a culture. We live in a time when the vast majority of Americans can recite, almost without thinking about it, the ingredients of a McDonald's Big Mac but would be hard-pressed to do the same with, say, a line or two of Wordsworth's poetry. It's with this in mind that James B. Twitchell, one of the most respected advertising scholars and pundits, and the author of the classic advertising text Adcult USA, has chosen the twenty ads (complete with their artwork) of the twentieth century that have most influenced our culture and marketplace. P. T. Barnum's creation of buzz, Pepsodent and the magic of the preemptive claim, Listerine introducing America to the scourge of halitosis, Nike's "Just Do It," Clairol's "Does She or Doesn't She?," Leo Burnett's invention of the Marlboro Man, Revlon's Charlie Girl, Coke's re-creation of Santa Claus, Absolut and the art world -- these ads are the signposts of a century of consumerism, our modern canon that is understood, accepted, beloved, and hated the world over.
Source: Amazon - October 5, 2021… (más)

Denunciada

fontanitum | otra reseña | Oct 5, 2021 |

Branded nation : the marketing of megachurch,… por James B. Twitchell

There seems to be a bit of a division with regards to opinions of this book, with some finding the content interesting while others claiming that it is shamelessly promoting the new age capitalist culture. Too be honest, we live in a branded culture, and modern branding is here to stay. That does not mean that I like or appreciate it, but we must accept it for what it is. I won't go into details of the history of the brand, but a brand is basically a story that is built around a product and it is the the story that sells, not the product. For instance, we have two tops, one is branded with, say Black Sabbath, the other has no brand. The attraction to the Black Sabbath T-shirt has more to do with wanting to be apart of the story that is Black Sabbath, to identify with it, where as a simple blank T-shirt carries no story with it. For instance, when I was in Rome, I saw somebody wearing a Pulp Fiction T-shirt and loved it so much that I spent the next four weeks looking for one. I finally found one in Amsterdam and immediately bought it and was wearing it the next day. Why? Well, because not only is the T-shirt is heaps cool but also because it allows me to identify with Pulp Fiction. It is why Nike can get away with selling overpriced t-shirts that do little more than advertise its brand without having to pay somebody to wear it. By encouraging people it embrace and identify with the story that is the brand allows the company to advertise itself without actually having to pay for it.
Twitchell looks at three institutions in his book: the church, the university, and the museum. The reason for this is that these three institutions are not traditionally connected with marketing, or even branding, but, as we read through his book, we suddenly come to realise how false this assumption really is. The church that Twitchell focuses on in his book is Willow Creek Church in Illinois, though the same can be said of many of the mega-churches across the United States, and even throughout the world (even though there are no true Mega-churches here in Australia). I used to go to a church that had been caught up in the branded-culture in that it is a member of a major Christian denomination, but it over the years has slowly been distancing itself from this denomination and creating its own brand and it does this through opening up branches around the city, holding seminars, camps, and training days through the year all the while promoting its brand. While the church is nowhere as large as churches like Willow Creek, we can see how it is beginning to develop and create its brand, and in the years before I left I even began to see it developing and producing its own bible studies.
Now, as a Christian, and a dedicated one at that (though I do hear objections being raised by that statement) I do have some serious concerns regarding this change in attitude. In a way, the criticism I have with regards to turning a church into a brand can similarly be targeted at universities and at museums. In that regard I am a traditionalist, with universities being institutions for learning aimed at learning for the sake of knowledge as opposed to learning for the sake of earning an income. The same with Museums as I go to Museums for what they have in the Museum and what I can learn from its exhibits as opposed to being connected to a brand. Okay, the museums that I visited in Europe tended to be targeted at specific disciplines, such as the Archeological Museum of Athens. The Vatican Museum is similar in that it is simply an extension of the Catholic brand, but in another way, it is just a means to show of all of the treasures it has collected (or stolen) through the ages (though quite a few of the objects in the museum, such as the paintings by Raphael, and the Sistine Chapel, were created for the Vatican). The Louvre and the British Museum are institutions in and of themselves, though once again the British Museum is a museum that mostly contains ancient anthropological collections, while the Louvre is just a collection of stuff (though I will admit that I did love the Louvre).
It is a shame that universities are shifting away from institutions of learning to simply advanced vocational institutions. However I suspect that it has a lot to do with attracting the best and the brightest through their doors, so that they can train and educate them and the release them into the working world to make an impact. It is this impact that the University wants because by attending the university, paying your tuition, and then going out to the world, you have taken on board the University's brand. Having the degree from a branded university is much more important than having a degree. For instance, if we have two people, both as smart and as adept as each other, but one has a degree from Kentucky State, while the other has a degree from Yale, when they go for that same job, in many cases (and I am not trying to be overtly broad here since there are a lot of other factors that go into obtaining a job) the Yale degree will be chosen over the Kentucky State degree.
Now, I was going to discuss my concerns with the church, though I have outlined it above to an extent. In a way, Christianity, and indeed the church, should not be defined by a brand, but by the gospel (and it is a shame that many of the worse perpetrators are completely blind to it). Remember that the brand is a story and taking the brand on board means that we want to be a part of that story. Therefore, a branded church creates a story that helps people identify with that church. However, with two churches, one branded, the other unbranded, that have the same doctrinal beliefs, should there be any difference. No, there shouldn't, because the gospel is the same no matter what, and just because you go to a branded church, and indeed are a leader in a branded church, does not mean that you are any different, or any better, to a person in the same position in an unbranded church. In a way, it is just a matter of perspective, and my belief is that the perspective can be quite dangerous.
The reason that I say that is that brands tend to be competitive. Take Coke and Pepsi for instance, or Google and Apple. Both have their loyal customers, and both are competing with the other to get customers to switch sides. While all is fair in love and the marketplace, this should not be happening within our Christian communities. In fact, churches really shouldn't be poaching people for other churches, because in the long run, it starts to create an holier than thou attitude, especially when you start claiming that your doctrine is right while their doctrine is not. An old pastor of mine who ran a university ministry, saw the danger that this posed and would discourage university students from dropping out of their church and joining his church. It didn't necessarily work, because it all had to do with perception. All of the cool people went to his church, so by going to his church, one would be cool.
Look, I have my brands that I subscribe to, but I must admit that it is not necessarily something that I really try to let dominate me. Football teams are a classic example, because when we follow a team we are subscribing to a brand. It is all well and good to go for Man-U since they always win, but what if you go for Bolton, or Swansea? You might subscribe to the brand, but you don't always win. However, let me suggest that being a Swansea supporter and seeing them win would probably give you a lot more joy, than being a Man-U supporter and watching them win, again (oh, by the way, I'm an Arsenal supporter, though I must admit that I don't own any Arsenal gear).… (más)

Denunciada

David.Alfred.Sarkies | otra reseña | Apr 20, 2014 |

Twenty Ads That Shook the World: The Century's Most… por James B. Twitchell

Mr. Twtichell takes the reader through 20 iconic ads that changed not only advertising, but he argues, popular culture as well. The book is short enough (215 pages) to be entertaining and has just enough depth to make his point that advertising is an art and part of our collective culture.

For those of us over 50, the book also provides a trip down memory lane as we can recall seeing many of the ads discussed in the book.

Clearly written, with a touch of humour, this is an interesting take on popular culture.… (más)

Denunciada

LynnB | otra reseña | Dec 28, 2012 |

Look Away, Dixieland: A Carpetbagger's Great… por James B. Twitchell

If you are from the South, James Twitchell is the great-grandson of a greedy carpetbagger. If you are from the North, he is the great-grandson of an enterprising businessman who was willing to relocate half way across the country in order to seek his fortune. Defining the aftermath of the Civil War this way, largely based upon whether your section of the country was on the winning or on the losing side, is indicative of the still existing sectional differences in this country. This difference in point-of-view is felt much more profoundly in the South, of course. Southerners, after all, are descendents of those who had a very personal war waged against them by Mr. Lincoln’s armies. Their homes, crops, cities, towns, factories, and universities were purposely destroyed in a way, and too a depth, that Union civilians seldom felt.

Twitchell, whose great-grandfather, Marshall H. Twitchell, moved from Vermont to Louisiana shortly after the war, now lives in Gainesville, Florida. On the same day that President Barak Obama was inaugurated, he and his wife set out on a slow drive across the Old South, along U.S. Highway 84, in hope of gaining an understanding of how something like what was done to his ancestor could have happened. What he learned from the people he met along the way opened his eyes in many ways. Twitchell would learn new details about the assassination attempt on his great-grandfather, in which the man lost both arms, and he would gain insight into why horrors like that one occurred during the Reconstruction period. Admittedly surprised by the friendliness and openness he encountered throughout the Deep South, Twitchell was forced to reconsider some of his own prejudices and stereotypical ideas about the South. Look Away, Dixieland is part history lesson, part travelogue, and part memoir.

At its core are two horrendous massacres that occurred during Southern Reconstruction: one at Colfax, Louisiana (April 1873) in which several dozen blacks were slaughtered, the other at Coushatta, Louisiana (August 1874), in which five whites, including three members of Twitchell’s family, and twenty blacks were killed. Two years later, when Marshall Twitchell dared return to the parish, he narrowly escaped an attempt on his own life.

Twitchell’s travels along Highway 84 make for interesting reading. He and his wife are appalled by the amount of trash they observe alongside the highway and by the easily observed poverty of the region, but they are slowly won over by the eagerness of the average Southerner to answer their questions and help make their quest a success. As Twitchell interacts with the locals, visits their little museums and their big churches, even meeting descendents of those who might have tried to kill his great-grandfather, he begins to understand that he is not as different from these Southerners as he would have liked to believe at the beginning of his drive.

The one false note that Twitchell strikes comes with almost a full dozen jarringly out-of-place references to Fox News or Sean Hannity. Almost every time Twitchell references a point about racism or less than honest newspapers and reporters of that long ago time, he feels obligated to use modern day Fox News Channel as an example of what he means. The references, spread throughout the entire book, more often distracted me than strengthened the point Twitchell wanted to make, weakening the book to a considerable degree.

Rated at: 3.5… (más)