For a woman like me, this Digital Hollywood conference is like a crash course in some things I know and some things I don't know, all at the same time. Obviously, being at a professional conference specifically geared for the entertainment industry in the town I moved to a year ago is a new experience for me: I don't know who the players are; how a TV writer hones her craft and makes connections; how a celebrity gets his or her press; or how Hollywood views the internet.
And yet, I do.
Sure, there are some processes and politics that are specific to the industry of Hollywood and celebrity gossip. But publicity, whether it's for Spencer and Heidi (whatever) or for a name change at an umbrella organization of Jewish federations (see here), is about two things for a publicist: crafting the message and getting that message out. What the message is is situation-specific; and the modes used for distributing that message should be as well. One could point out a vital third component with two parts: relationship - both the relationship between the publicist and his/her client, and the relationship between the publicist/client entity and members of the press.
Several ideas and experiences seemed familiar or intuitive to me, but were hailed as innovative by the audience, which consisted of an eclectic group of underemployed, self-employed, publicists, writers, editors, actors, producers, content developers, web designers, techie coder geeks, advertising representatives, lawyers, event planners and professional schmoozers. With a group that large and diverse, programming had to be similarly diverse in terms of appeal and approach, and in many cases it was. But it's hard to speak to a group with so many degrees of online literacy
For instance, if you didn't realize that making it in Hollywood was hard, well, you would after attending the conference - at one point I imagined Debbie Allen in the corner, leaning on a dance stick, giving her monologue ("You got big dreams? You want fame? Well fame costs...and right here's where you start paying -- in sweat." FAME!). Also, did you know that "Glee" was popular in part due to its premiere over the summer and then the anticipatory build until the season began in September? Or, that "The Office" didn't have that strong a following at first, but then built because of the online audience? Or that "Dr. Horrible" was financed personally by Joss Whedon? Or that the "Mad Men" characters have been Tweeting, but that they're not supported by AMC - they're a fan initiative? I've never been to a tech conference before, but I, in fact, did know all these things. But the oohs and aahs of the audience proved that not everyone reads Entertainment Weekly like I do.
There also seemed to be unrelenting criticism of bloggers as panelists and attendees seemed to alternately thank the bloggers for mobilizing fans online and condemn them for their unpredictability, and for not following traditional journalism's rules. This constant reference to all bloggers as unprofessional (which is not the same thing as calling them "not journalists") highlighted the fact that people don't get it: blogging is a tool, and all kinds of people use that tool to do all kinds of writing. (This disconnect is something those of us in Jewish journalism/commentary have seen before, if you remember "Jewish Bloggers Are Not the Enemies of Jewish Storytelling.")
Some bloggers write journalistically, others juvenilely. And there's a continuum, of course. Many of us do employ a different tone than traditional journalism, and write in this tone because the medium's democracy and immediacy lends itself to the personal lens that most bloggers take to the subjects about which they're most passionate. But for the most part, I heard people blame bloggers more than thank them: for leaking stories, for lying, for being a source of negative press, for being uncontrollable, for being unprofessional, for ushering traditional journalism toward its deathbed...I was waiting to hear how bloggers were responsible for higher taxes, Michael Jackson's death, and 9/11, but I guess I missed that session.
I wanted to do a session about people saying "do a 360" when they really meant "turning around completely to face the other direction," which would be "doing a 180." If you do a 360, you end up in the same place, right?
Filed under "jargonwatch" are the buzzwords that kept coming up often enough that they could have become a drinking game. ("That panelist said 'balloon boy' - everyone drink!") Other phrases could have been: "Kim Kardashian," "Hail Mary pass," "Jon Gosselin," "prerolls," "ecosystem," and of course, tying with "balloon boy" for most references, the apparently paradigm-shattering film "Paranormal Activity."
Of course, 'everyone drink' when no food is provided is a colossally bad idea. (There were lunches provided on the second day, but I got to the table too late and all that was left were apples.) After the cocktail hour by the pool - which was beautiful if a little sunny for we gingerish kids - I literally overheard a drunk man ask a tipsy woman to go upstairs to his room with him. "I don't know you," she said (thank God).
But even to the weak from hunger or the impaired by alcohol, a few things were clear: Hollywood is very much still adjusting to the notion and culture of social media, and the networks are trying not to be, but are scared by the unknowns that the internet represents - most notably, the fact that no one's figured out quite how to effectively monetize that space to earn network revenue. In other words, they, the world of journalism, non-profit and likely others.
There will be other reflections as I type up my notes, but if you just can't wait and need more DH, view the timeline of tweets from DH09 here. You're welcome.
Other Digital Hollywood posts:
Comments