The ambiguous longing of the real

“We are experiencing a growing use of surveillance cameras, and a form of factual television that seems to depend more heavily on the evidential force of the photographic image than any previous form: reality TV” (Fetveit, 1999).

Reality TV over the decade has been accused as trash TV. Whether it be Keeping Up with the Kardashians, Kendra, Jersey shore, The Bachelorette, COPS, LAPD, The Renovators, The Biggest Loser, Amazing Race, Beauty and the Geek, Wipeout,

 The X Factor, Big Brother… There’s something out there for everyone.

Some theorists are arguing that, in a deeper psychological sense, perhaps the proliferation of reality TV could be understood as an euphoric effort to reclaim what seems to be lost after digitalisation. The powerful urge for a sense of contact with the real is inscribed in much of the reality TV footage.  Reality TV comes with a unique promise of contact with reality, but at the same time it promises a secure distance. It is not reality, it is reality TV, a show.

On the wholly different note,

I recently read an interesting article by Steven Reiss and James Wiltz on ‘Why people watch Reality TV’ which I thought had an extremely interesting take. They assess the appeal of reality TV based on 16 basic desires. They derived the 16 basic desires from sensitivity theory, which is borrowed heavily from Aristotle’s work. Some of the basic desires include:

Reiss’s 16 Basic Motives

Motive name	Motive	Animal Behavior	Joy
Curiosity	Desire for knowledge	Animal learns to find food more efficiently and learns to avoid prey	Wonderment
Status	Desire for prestige (including desire for attention)	Attention in nest leads to better feedings	Self-importance
Independence	Desire for autonomy	Motivates animal to leave nest, searching for food over larger area	Freedom

Each of the 16 basic desires is thought to be universally motivating, but individuals differ in how they prioritize the 16 basic desires. When Reiss’s sensitivity theory was applied to viewing television shows. The theory suggested that individuals prefer to watch those shows that arouse the joys most important to them. People who are strongly motivated to socialize, for example, should be especially interested in shows that portray groups, fun, or friendship. Those strongly motivated by vengeance should be especially interested in television programs with aggressive content.

Basic motivation influences what people pay attention to and what they do, in this case, Reiss and Wiltz is arguing, what they choose to watch as well.

Which is your motivator?

References:

Reality TV in the digital era: a paradox in visual culture by Arild

Fetveithttp://kenrogers.org/archive/archive/files/dd02f1a843af23f235f5144e9504331b.pdf

Why people watch reality TV

http://www.philadelphia.edu.jo/Books/Variety%20of%20Topics/Why%20People%20Watch%20Reality%20TV.pdf

The Wire vs CSI

The Wire has been described by devotees as being as addictive as the crack cocaine sold by its protagonists.

The Wire – yet another series by HBO, took a while to gain momentum. It came to Australia’s channel Nine a few years back and mysteriously disappeared after. Graeme Blundell, writer of The Australian describes The Wire as disjointed when he first caught a few random episodes late at night.

“It was too dense and confusing, and the profane street dialogue was desperately in need of subtitles and a glossary”.

It wasn’t until he watched the box sets till he understood the acclaim – which is still on Amazon’s Top 50 list by the way.

Blundell continues to say:

“The Wire turns out to be a visceral drama with distinctively long plot arcs, dense webs of characters and astute social analysis. Yes, it is about covert surveillance, those methods used by the police to try to undermine and take apart a criminal organisation, but it quickly becomes clear that Simon intends the title to have a double meaning, referring to almost an imaginary but inviolable boundary between what he sees as the two Americas. He looks at the tragic disparity between the functional, post-industrial economy that still mints new millionaires every day and the other society increasingly consigned to a permanent underclass”.

The Wire is definitely NOT a background movie. It assumes the viewers are always paying full attention and are intelligent. From the little I have watched, and not understood most of what I saw, you definitely have to keep your eyes glued to the TV for this one, oh and your ears up. The documentary style shooting moving from conversations between criminals and the task force involves long narrations. A lot of screen time is given to criminals and the overall of the movie is made up by the narration of multiple characters unlike other crime investigation shows, which brings us to CSI.

CSI on the other hand is highly stylised with heart pumping music to match the intense scenes in the series. The Wire on the other hand has no background music in many of its scenes, focusing solely on conversation.

Murder is more casual in The Wire, very much downplayed. The body of the victim often lays there with little attention, giving more focus to the living that may or may not help to solve the case. The Wire focuses less on murder, more on the situation and the pattern  of the crime committed.

Scenes in CSI however is often placed in a lab. A large focus is placed on the body of the victim, how or when he died. Finding evidence and DNA of others to pursue further leads. The primary focus is on the body of the victim, which will hopefully lead them down other paths to investigate, which more than often, they find, which is pretty much how the plot of the show progresses forward.

The Wire vs. CSI. They’re both investigation shows focusing on different elements although essentially made up of the same elements and material even.

In all honesty, I think CSI is flashy and glamorises being an investigator with witty humour and irony. The Wire on the other hand, finds the nitty and gritty and puts it on screen for viewers to see.

To read more on -Unravelling the wire – Graeme Blundell

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business-old/unravelling-the-wire/story-e6frg8mf-1225766725265

 

Static never sounded so good

When I hear the buzz of static opening up to a HBO series, I know it’s going to be good.  Sex and the City, Entourage, The Wire, The Soprano’s, Six Feet Under, Deadwood, Big Love, Carnivale are just a few of HBO series that has had people still talking even after the series ended. Many of which has won several awards. So if someone where to come up to me and say HBO = quality TV, I’d say I THINK SO.

Recently we looked into quality TV, and what it actually entailed. Doing my own research, there really is a lot of debate on what exactly quality TV is.

Robert. J. Thompson simply put “Quality TV is best defined by what it is not”.

Sarah Cardwell on the other hand identifies quality with having a privileged relationship with the real or annexing it to traditional high culture.

Robin Nelson concluded “notions of quality are an open narrative of the broad culture and institutional context of the evaluation and the valuer, rather than a closed resolution answering the question of worth for all time”.

Bringing it back to HBO, it has proved time and again that it’s capable of pushing the boundaries and demonstrating just how much potential TV truly has. Its tag line – It’s not TV, It’s HBO, is good in describing just exactly what HBO is not, as Thompson said.

Mr. Albrecht said he believed that “HBO’s dominance was partly explained by its ability to reach deep into the creative community”. Top filmmakers and actors not often involved in television, like Steven Spielberg, Mike Nichols, Tom Hanks, Al Pacino, Emma Thompson and Meryl Streep, have worked on HBO projects. So we know they’re got the raw talent, but it is their willingness to takes risks with their writers and producers that really pushes the boundaries to create great TV.

Following Robin Nelson’s cue, I’d say that after evaluation and me as the valuer, in the culture I know and live in, HBO IS quality TV.

 

References:

‪It’s not TV: watching HBO in the post-television era‬ By Marc Leverette, Brian L. Ott, Cara Louise Buckley

‪Quality TV: contemporary American television and beyond‬ By Janet McCabe, Kim Akass

How HBO has pushed back the boundaries of modern television

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/29/hbo-tv-drama-pacesetter-yardstick

HBO: The Tough Act TV Tries to Follow

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/25/arts/television/25hbo.html?_r=1

Mixing it up

When we pick what to watch on TV, we refer to what genre’s they’re put in, whether it is, comedy, drama, horror, action, sci-fi etc and pick the ones we enjoy most. “Whilst we have names for countless genres in many media, some theorists have argued that there are also many genres (and sub-genres) for which we have no names” (Fowler & Wales, 1989).

Writers no longer stick to the boundaries and are exploring new methods of genre mixing, which I think is a new phenomenon to hit TV.

The classification of genres is not a neutral and objective procedure as Daniel Chandler says. “A genre is ultimately an abstract conception rather than something that exists empirically in the world,” notes Jane Feuer.

On that note, genre mixing is often interlinked with the notion of genre hybridity. All the theory aside, I want to look at hit TV series, The Simpsons.

To The Simpson’s, Josh Ozersky, media critic said “It’s an odd thing when a cartoon series is praised as one of the most trenchant and “realistic” programs on TV, but there are you are”.

It is obvious that The Simpsons is on some level a mixture of domestic sitcom, animation and cartoon.  Though seeming the same things, animations is actually quite general, connoting a technological process and visual techniques, whereas cartoon implies a “predominantly children audience, whimsical content and questionable social values “ (Mittel, 2001). Clearly, writers are working against dominant meanings of cartoons as “kids stuff”, and gave rise to a revolutionary hit TV series in the 1990s.

Some critics have said that The Simpson’s is too much fuss and effort over a cartoon. However, some have even said The Simpson’s to be even livelier and more vividly human than live-TV shows.

Regardless of what has been said about the TV series, adolescents seem to be tuning in and liking this genre mixing. The satire and cultural references injected into the TV series, has redefined cartoons for them, making it worth their while watching. It sure beats having a princess waltz around a screen singing a song about birds and chipmunks. It seems, the audience has spoken…

References:

Cartoon Realism: Genre mixing and the cultural life of The Simpsons

(Jason Mittel – 2001)

http://www.kirkjalbert.com/wiki/images/6/60/Mittell_Simpsons.pdf

An introduction to Genre theory (Daniel Chandler – 2000)

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/intgenre/intgenre1.html

Complex TV

TV has been traditionally controlled by networks and bound its viewers to tight schedules, dictated by the network. With the rapid development of technology, viewers now have control over what they want to watch and when, with DVD box sets available for purchase, streaming off the internet and recording function on digital TV.

With so, as we have discussed in earlier posts, it is technology that has lead to the possibility of transmedia and ultimately for a different sort of narrative on TV, called “narrative complexity”.

In Mittel’s paper for Narrative Complexity in contemporary American television, he describes “narrative complexity in its most basic level as a redefinition of episodic forms under the influence of serial narration” (Mittel, 2006).

The paper talks about narrative complexity in detail and looks at many aspects of it. However, for the purpose of this blogpost, I have chosen to look at only certain elements of the many good ideas Mittel talks about in regards to one of my favourite TV series, Modern Family.

Firstly, he comments how many episodes leave characters in untenable situations. In Modern Family, when the characters are first introduced, they are dealing with their own problems and are each obviously flawed in their own manner. Viewers form opinions of their own of each character, leaving the characters no chance of defending themselves of justifying their actions, unless the viewers keep watching.

Characters are also left in “ongoing situations, unresolved moments that do not serve as cliff-hangers like in serial drama, but rather as comedic punch lines, never to be referenced again”. For those who have seen Modern Family, will know that this point is particularly true for the TV series, and also the driving force of the comedy present in it. Many scenes contain a character or another saying something silly/funny/unrelated to the ongoing situation, leaving the other characters in the scene speechless – the look on their faces are priceless, and a huge reason why Modern Family is so funny.

Upon meeting the characters for the very first time, I remember thinking to myself, how on earth are any of these people related or have anything to do with one another? Which really helps to illustrate Mittel’s next point on how there is a “more self-conscious mode of storytelling that it’s typical within conventional television narration”. “The show revels on the mechanics of its plotting, weaving stories for each character together in a given episode through unlikely coincidence”. In the case of Modern Family, when we first meet the characters, they seem to live different sort of lives and are unlikely to cross paths – up until the episode delivers the ultimate punch line – that they are all family, and inevitably related to one another by blood or marriage.

Being family, the characters in Modern Family, inevitably have a history and memories with one another. The writes and producers of Modern Family use a number of storytelling devices to hash up old fight, memories or emotions. These devices are “not unique to this mode, but is used with such frequency and regularity as to become a norm that the exception”. In Modern Family, a great example, is the use of flashbacks. Characters have flashbacks from the past that are brought over to the present and introduced as yet another topic or theme of the series. This tool is extremely useful for narrative complexity in TV series, because drawing from the past, the writers will have an abundant of topics to keep bring in for the rest of the season. However, this is only one example, and Modern Family is not limited to just one of the many aspects of narrative complexity as mentioned by Mittel in his paper.

Though Mittel does talk about many other elements of narrative, I do not think that they are all compulsory when defining what exactly is narrative complexity. Depending on the TV series, they may have some or maybe even none of the elements he mentioned, but still regarded as complex narrative. Thats the beauty of TV I guess, there is just so much that is open to your own interpretation!

Watching TV a little differently now

Today, in lectures and tutorials, we looked at Deadwood. We watched a scene and had a discussion about it in class. Honestly, I was surprised with the direction steered towards (though I don’t see why because we are studying Television Cultures).

From that one scene alone from the two person conversation in the bar, to a wholly different scene where the man was shot upstairs, there was much to discuss.

First, we were asked to identify the protagonist in the scene and the series.My classmates were able to immediately identify the bartender as someone that has a somewhat central role in the series. The fact that we saw him first in the introduction meant that he played one of the main characters. Also, the manner in which he spoke also indicated that he was someone to pay attention to. Overall, we (not me really) decided that overall. the series has multi-protaganists, and often has several story-lines running at once. This complexity in the plot meant that tuning out was not really an option unlike in comedies According to Jim and Everybody loves Raymond, where viewers could tune out and tune in later and still understand pretty much the whole of whats going on.

We also looked at the overall atmosphere of the scene, with its seedy environment, sepia effects giving viewers a rather nostalgic feeling when watching and authenticity of detailing, having candles instead of light bulbs and heavy accents.

Then, there were close ups. Supposedly, it is used much more in TV than in film, simply because often, TV does not have the budget for longer shots.

With that one particular scene where the man shot in the head dies, and the camera

zooms out, and everyone is just quiet and standing in angular poses with their side profiles facing the camera, the shot seems aesthetically beautifully composed.The stillness where everyone is quiet momentarily shows just how brutal living in the environment is. It is a moment of humanity – which then slips back into pragmatism.OH – its called a reverse shot.

All this came out from ONE scene, that couldn’t possibly have ran for more than 5 minutes.Well, much of it came from my classmates and tutor. I know this is my first time doing TV studies, but that one scene was enough for me to conclude that – I am TV illiterate.

Oh well, at least I learned something today.Thanks Deadwood.

Assessment 1

In no particular order:

1) Old Buddy Telly

2) Interacting with TV

3) Skins

4) Buzzword of the year: Transmedia

Buzzword of the year: Transmedia

The word transmedia gets thrown around alot.  ’Trans’ and ‘media’, these words sound simple enough, but when you really think about it, what exactly does the word mean?

We’ve come across Henry Jenkins many times in this course, he describes it as:

“Transmedia storytelling represents a process where integral elements of a fiction get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated entertainment experience. Ideally, each medium makes it own unique contribution to the unfolding of the story.”

However, in a simpler version,

“Transmedia storytelling is about immersion, participation & experiences in an authored environment which will not only attract existing readers, but bring new audiences and modes of fragmentation.” ( Transmedia Storytelling – What’s it all about?” by Alison Norrington for FutureBook)

To break it down further,

Immersion requires a fair amount of time and engagement from the audience. Most people don’t have the time or can’t be bothered to research something unless they are really interested. “ If the content is full of cliff-hangers, hyperlinks and other noodles that lead them down other roads… roads that they take the time to follow… this is really good stuff”. (Wilson 2010)

Participation (according to David Wilson 2010 – What exactly in Transmedia anyway?) “You want a community around your content; a place where people feel comfortable to share their opinions and ideas. If this results in quality participation, then the content is enriched by the community and only gets more immersive and better with time. This means that the story isn’t told in a linear, time-restricted fashion (necessarily) but can be enjoyed on multiple levels and at different points in time (and places). This can lead to good word-of-mouth where your audience is carrying out promotion and distribution for you”.

This coincides with Henry Jenkin’s point of view that says participation has to do with properties of a culture and  fan culture is high onparticipation, where fans take the resources offered by a text and push it in a range of directions which are neither preprogrammed nor authorized by the producers.

Experience to me is essential to the audience. If the audience enjoys and likes what they see, they will be more likely to co-create content which helps enrich the story and experience.

There are many examples of transmedia storytelling. Lost for example, does pretty well in this aspect. Their episodes where not only available on TV but online as webisodes as well. ABC also organised forums and fans sites with clever spins on names like ‘Lostaways’ and ‘Lostpedia’. Of course Apple Itunes store was quick behind the heel offering Lost episodes as well.

However, in my previous post I have talked fairly in depth about the series Skins.I will continue to talk about Skins because to me, as an audience, they really do make use of the multiple platforms to enrich the viewing experience.

Firstly, we all know Skins follows the lives of a bunch of teenagers. From there they have cleverly created Myspace pages for each of them following their characters like’s and dislikes. Besides Myspace, BBC’s Skins official website is pretty comprehensive website for fans including forum’s, quizzes, unseen footage on episodes that better explains  some of the things that happen in the

show, tips, and a shop to buy memorabilia. Apple Itunes Store is on it as well. It truly allows for countless hours of participation and immersion for fans of Skins. Rather than just watching the show which already has a unique way of story telling by peeling the character’s layers off one by one to allow viewers to get to know them better slowly, they have also made use of each different platform to make sure their content is unique and adheres to platform specific strengths.

Like we have discussed in tutorials, transmedia really isn’t about the number of platform used, it is about the depth each platform is used to engage and immerse viewers to enhance the story-telling experience.

References:

http://www.henryjenkins.org/2007/03/transmedia_storytelling_101.html

http://jillatkinson.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/transmedia-entertainment-8-defining-characteristics/

http://www.transmediator.net/?tag=transmedia-definition

http://www.futurebook.net/content/transmedia-storytelling-%E2%80%93-what%E2%80%99s-it-all-about

http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/328/index.jsp

Interacting with TV

We’ve all done it, texting while watching TV, surfing on our laptop, playing with an Ipad. The fact is, there is a new two-screen viewing phenomenon emerging without our realization.

While the number of screens and touchscreens invading  homes may seem jarring and frightening to adults, a new study suggests that children are quite capable of adapting to a high tech lifestyle. Researchers at the University of Brostol and Loughborough University (via ScienceDaily) have been examining the effect multiple electronic viewing devices has on children and how they interact with multiple devices at a time.

“Questioning 10-11 year olds, researchers at the University of Bristol and Loughborough University found that the children enjoyed looking at more than one screen at a time. They used a second device to fill in breaks during their entertainment, often talking or texting their friends during adverts or while they were waiting for computer games to load. TV was also used to provide background entertainment while they were doing something else — especially if the program chosen by their family was ‘boring” (ScienceDaily 2011).

And its not just for kids. We’re always fighting against time, multitasking have become an essential part of our fast paced lives. A survey, commissioned by QuickPlay Media shows that 53 percent of respondents voiced an interest in services that allow them to seamlessly switch between multiple devices, such as PCs and smartphones, when watching programs.

So when NBC launched their NBC live app, I thought well, thast just brilliant, we all already interact with multiple screens most of the time anyway, why not make it official?

NBC said, “Don’t just watch TV, interact with TV! Welcome to NBC Live, the most fun you can have while watching your favorite NBC shows. Talk with fellow fans, enjoy trivia and polls, and even interact with NBC stars on your iPad while watching on your TV set”.

Here’s a snapshot of how NBC live looks like.

Its layout is simple, it links you to all the places you need to go. A review from ipadappshub.com said “The conversation was civilized and good-natured. I don’t know what kind of technology (or people) they have behind the scenes for monitoring, but the people chatting were enjoying it. In fact I ended up paying more attention to the conversation than the shows. There are a few nice features too, such as the ability to follow other users, time-zone filtering, and a ‘like’ button.”

NBC live app is definitely a first of its kind. They still have a few kinks here and there to work on. I can see the direction they’re headed at, the success of it however, depends entirely on the people at NBC because multiple screen viewing isn’t just a trend and is here to stay,  their next moves will ultimately decide whether they successfully jump on the band wagon. The success or failure of NBC will be a benchmark for other institutions to learn and jump start the usage of multiple screens.

Due to the fact this phenomenon is still fairly recent and still on the rise, there are yet studies and research done on the long term effects of multiple screen viewing on kids and people in general.

To me, this phenomenon shows how TV conglomerates are no longer just interested in TV. They know and understand that there are now a variety of screens and technology to compete with. Ipads and smart phones allows us to have the mobility and flexibility that TV has yet to offer. To survive, TV conglomerates have to come up with new and improved ways to weave themselves into the lives of the the people that are constantly moving and looking for everything that is quick and easy to go with their fast paced lives. It will be interesting to see as technology develops with smaller and more mobile screens, just exactly what TV conglomerates do. Will they power on as they have in the past few decades or is their Golden Age tucked away in the past?

References:

2010, Strong consumer interest in Multi-screen viewing of TV & movies,  Cellular-news, viewed 18 August 2011, <http://www.cellular-news.com/story/42529.php>.

2011, TV time: Why children watch multi-screens, ScienceDaily, viewed 18 August 2011, <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110802201441.htm>.

Markowitz, D 2011, NBC must be seeing the second screen, WordPress, viewed 18 August 2011, <http://livingonthesecondscreen.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/nbc-must-be-seeing-the-second-screen/>.

Rose,2011,  NBC live for ipad: Shooting for the stars…and falling, , ipadsAppsHub, viewed 18 August 2011, <http://www.ipadappshub.com/lifestyle-apps/nbc-live-for-ipad/>.

Van Camp, J 2011, Kids love multitasking on multiple screens, NBC Digital Trends, viewed 18 August 2011, <http://www.nbc-2.com/story/15203050/kids-love-multitasking-on-multiple-screens>.

Skins

Where do I begin describing Skins?

It features a group of teenagers living in Bristol, going through  issues such as dysfunctional families, mental illnesses (eating disorder for example) and death, meanwhile exploring with their sexuality and substance abuse.

Having watched Skins myself, whilst I acknowledge the fact that many parts of the plot is exaggerated, it still gives a painfully honest portrayal of some of the things teenagers face and do.

The pilot of Skins pulled 1.5 million viewers and has since received quite a number of awards throughout the 5 series. The main attraction of Skins to me is that they are loud and rude but still funny and quirky at the same time. The character development as the series progresses is done amazingly well. Each of them are dynamic, interesting and real in their own ways, making the viewers hating them but loving them at the same time. The best part is, the viewers are left wanting to know more.

Now there have been several versions of Skins. The original being the UK version and then remade into a US version. It has been argued that the new series Slide of Fox is just an Aussie version of Skins, I guess we’ll see.

Skins UK did extremely well, as I have mentioned. So when it was pulled by MTV and re-done in a US version, it bombed. They have had accusations of “sensationalism”, “child pornography”, and being dubbed “ the most dangerous show on television”.MTV cancelled the show after the first season, and continually lost advertisers due to its controversies. Chewing gum company Wrigley suspended advertising on Skins after running a commercial during the premiere episode, according to the LA Times. And H&R Block, whose ad also appeared on the premiere episode, told TMZ their ad ran “by mistake” and it will not happen again. Even General Motors did not want to associate themselves with US Skins. The ASA said Skins “could cause serious or widespread offence” and shouldn’t be seen by children. “ In America, the PTC seems especially exercised about a shot due to air January 31st of actor Jesse Carere, 17, walking down a Baltimore street showing his bare ass”  (Adler 2011). Even with the bad language and drug references toned down in the US version, there still seems to be uproar of protests to the show, which has left producers scratching their heads.

Personally, the themes in both the UK and US version are similar and although it is grotesque for parents to watch, they are themes that I believe should be addressed especially with STD and teen pregnancy rates rising in the US. Bryan Elsley (co-creator of UK Skins) calls the show a “rather old fashioned television series,” and adamantly defends its content as “a very serious attempt to get to the roots of young people’s lives. It tries to tell the truth. Sometimes that truth can be a little painful to adults and parents.”

“The show has been used in anti-drug campaigns, has drawn praise for its portrayal of mental health issues and explorations of bereavement, sexuality, bullying and gender stereotyping”.

“I have lost count of the letters we have been sent by viewers who tell us that they have been able to approach their parents or teachers with their difficulties after watching the show.”

Admittedly, the UK cast is much better actors than in the US version, leaving US actors incredibly large shoes to fill. And to be fair US lost its ability to be original, being a remake. However, it still doesn’t explain the contrasts of reception in UK and US, because they are very similar in many ways.

Taste culture is my way of explaining the difference in responses. US viewers do not seem to accept confrontation as well as UK viewers do. I think so anyway.

Skins UK vs Skins US

References:

http://www.deadline.com/2011/01/uk-skins-not-as-controversial-as-in-u-s/

http://tvovermind.zap2it.com/cable/mtv/skins-mtv/skins-uk-skins-analysis/50172

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/06/09/mtv-cancels-skins/

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/01/24/skins-creator-statement/

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/01/24/skins-advertisers/

http://educ.jmu.edu/~brysonbp/symbound/papers2001/Olivier.html