Discovery Channel at BM 2005

DaBomb · Post by **DaBomb** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:20 am

Rather than throwing eggs at art, how about this angle: Larry versus Charlie in Thunderdome! Hell, I'd even watch that.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:31 am

Canadians are taking over the event! Hurrah! We are Saved! We will have politeness and national health and lots of wheat fields! And only CBC will broadcast documentaries!

Let's join hands, like in that other documentary The Simpsons and sing
O! Canada!

eticket66 · Post by **eticket66** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:12 pm

[quote="DaBomb"]

Here's what I got:

Average primetime viewers*: 1,014,000 people

[/quote]

Exactly. With all due credit to the Google gods, I know you know this stuff.

On Discovery Times Channel - where the show airs - the figures are from a Business Week article and was less than 27,000 primetime viewers on average (out of a possible reach of 35 million homes) as of last October. 27,000 compared to 'slightly over one million'. But..

I'm being overly generous with the math to attempt to account for massive growth in the past year. And Ron, as I think you correctly point out, to what extent the audience or channel grows is still up in the air.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... _mz001.htm

Disc. Times Channel viewership could increase by 1000 percent and still be tiny, but we'll just have to see. And I remain just as skeptical that this show, even given a relatively larger audience, international sales and multiple repeats, still won't have any negative effect on BM or blow up the attendance.

I do keep up on this stuff - this quasi-docu genre defines my gig - and will keep my eyes open for this show and am happy to provide an update.

- Randy

eticket66 · Post by **eticket66** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:55 pm

[quote="Kinetic IV"][quote]I therefore propose taking on a new crusade that will have an immediate positive impact on the quality of BM. Lets get rid of those motorized scooters, skateboards and non-art golf carts.
[/quote]

Expect resistance on changing the scooter policy. Now if it's scooters with seats and non-art golf carts by all means knock yourself out and go for it. But a blanket ban on all scooters will be challenged.[/quote]

I see the messiness of banning all scooters. Waivers would exempt those with injuries or disabilities, though it's easy to imagine hairsplitting tactics while attempting to receive one, as in, 'my elbow hurts, I need to ride my scooter' or 'my sunburn chafes on the bicycle seat'.

I may stick with plan A, creating and awarding "non-art" awards for those able-bodied participants in motorized scooters, skateboards and golf carts.

- Randy

DaBomb · Post by **DaBomb** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:55 pm

The average ratings need to be held up against the total market for that time period. For these numbers to make sense, we need to see both the RATING and the MARKET SHARE data.

You see, ratings and viewership are relative to market share for that time period, which is the number I'd really like to see. The current numbers are only available through a subscription to Nielsen, that's why you can't find much about it , Chai.

When you see these two numbers, they breakdown thusly: the first number is the rating in the time period. The second number is the show's share of the market. You really can't have an accurate analysis without both numbers. Advertisers and media buyers want to know their reach, plan their advertising budgets and pay a fair price for the time slots they purchase.

The thing is, this data only reflects first run-prime time viewership. After the broadcast and cable networks, then comes the re-runs in syndication within local television stations, national syndicators, regional cable television systems and satellite providers. For instance, the HBO show "Sex and The City" which originally aired in first run from 1998 to 2004 is now syndicated here in a Los Angeles locally for the WB, now repackaged for it's syndicated market.

And that's essentially the point: commercializaton of Burning Man as it is sandwiched between ad spots in first-run and syndication for all sorts of products and services, some of which whose logos we are asked to obfuscate at the event (i.e. the truck rental companies, etc.) and others we make parody of (i.e. the CostCo SoulMate Trading Outlet, etc). Following the initial prime time airing, the feed trickles down to the bottom feeders.

The media's darling of Burning Man will have it's 15 minutes in mainstream media both in national and syndication, bloating the event for mass consumption and then leave us in the [playa] dust. I guess that's why the Mr. Clean spot is shown on the trailer, to clean up the mess of consumerism and mass consumption that's left behind in their wake. It would be nice if the Media and their Advertising friends could grasp the concept: "Leave no trace!"

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 2:43 pm

eticket66 wrote: I may stick with plan A, creating and awarding "non-art" awards for those able-bodied participants in motorized scooters, skateboards and golf carts.

- Randy

This is brillient and I would love to see it done. Please however prep yourself by talking to informed persons about hidden disabilities. (I know people with no visable impairment who qualify for Liscence Plates from the state.) That way if you meet someone who needs the wheels you can hold up your side of an intelligent discussion on the matter and if you find someone who's faking you might be able to smoke them out.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 3:08 pm

I certainly appreciate everyone's input, however I would ask that we start a new thread for the worthwhile discussion of scooters, golf carts and "art cars". Feel free to use my other thread "I think art cars are stupid" if you so desire.

Thanks,

Chai Guy

eticket66 · Post by **eticket66** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 3:18 pm

[quote="DaBomb"]
The media's darling of Burning Man will have it's 15 minutes in mainstream media both in national and syndication, bloating the event for mass consumption and then leave us in the [playa] dust. [/quote]

I think you've hit on the crux. I may not share your outlook, though there is always the possibility of at least a minor blip on the radar. I don't think so, but we'll see, I guess. To whatever degree BM may be effected, look for me at minute 16. I'll be among the hordes of burners pushing the reset button, not unlike this year.

- R

EricMagic · Post by **EricMagic** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 8:41 pm

Wow there is a lot of money in this event. Just do the math.

$200 / Ticket * 30,000 Tickets = $6,000,000 just made off the ticket sales. (basic conservative estimate)

Then the undisclosed amount made off the Discovery Channel, and the various Burning man Merchandise such as Calendars, Posters, and so on. Then the undisclosed amount of other fees from other short documentary makers.

Overall there is very low overhead too.

BLM license/fee is about $500,000 and much of that may be refunded.

Basic free labor from many persons.

Free tickets to others who do a little more or pretend to do a little more.

Small amount to the company that does the fireworks and burning.

Whoever states this event is not about selling stuff and making gobs of money is seriously delusional.

Remember, do not always believe what you read, hear, or even see. Believe the verifiable actions, the lowness of human nature, and the real things that go on behind closed doors.

Is everyone happy in the land of Burning Man Oz?

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:08 pm

eticket66 wrote:Well, as I notice the word 'dialog' thrown around more and see the general tone of discussion - mine included - become less shrill, less cut-and-paste, and seemingly more productive I figure it's time to dust off my viewpoint, update a couple things and put it out.

Your dialog seems to be better composed and thought out than most on this board, its nice to hear someone actually lurked to learn a bit before posting.

Still think Charlie LaDuff's show will screw up Burning Man with increased publicity? I'm convinced the influence of this show, negative or otherwise, has been overstated. Way overstated. So a tiny audience watches, and of those, a smaller percentage may decide to join us next year. And if, despite the behavior of the crew, the Producers somehow manage to craft a decent show, then - gasp - the virgins may actually 'get it'.

You bring up some valid points, but I am not so sure that its as simple as a 'increase in numbers' problem. I think you started to touch on it with stating that 'virgins may actually get it.' I dont believe a documentary exists that can adaquately describe what a community is all about, especially one as socially diverse, heavily oriented around art, and largely a volunteer oriented effort as bman is. Almost by default, I think putting it on a commercialized and syndicated network puts it at odds with many of the events principals.

I will think more about this, and I appreciate the civil discussion eveyone is showing so far.

EB · Post by EB » Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:40 pm

EricMagic wrote:Wow there is a lot of money in this event. Just do the math.

Okay, let's do that math.

$200 / Ticket * 30,000 Tickets = $6,000,000 just made off the ticket sales. (basic conservative estimate)

The org says it collects an average of $212/ ticket. Multiply that by 35,000 peeps. $7,420,00

Then the undisclosed amount made off the Discovery Channel

Hm. Probably around $25 grand. Since BM and DC have what we call in nature a complementary relationship, (BM gets free exposure, probably on Discovery's HD station and DC gets content) I can't see why DC would pay a huge fee to the org. There's plenty of other festivals around the world to film and it's not like people are going to burn up the phone lines ordering the DC because BM is going to be on it... But hey, I'll double my estimate to $50k. So far we're at almost $7.5 million in revenue.

and the various Burning man Merchandise such as Calendars, Posters, and so on.

You mean the calendar and posters sold and marketed via the website? Uh, okay. Let's see, the profit margin on a $15 calendar is, say, $10. How many do you think they sell? I'd say no more than 2000. So, okay, there's $20k more.

Then the undisclosed amount of other fees from other short documentary makers.

Ever met a documentary maker? I have. Lots of 'em. Sometimes they dig through my recycables on trash day, which drives me crazy even though I voted for Kerry. Truth is, these peeps don't have a lot to spend on licensing fees because their movies don't make any money. I think you're sensationalizing the public's thirst for all things Burning Man. Think of it's following as that of a small market college football team. And their season is made up of a single home game. And they fill maybe half the stadium. That's Burning Man.

Overall there is very low overhead too.

This is where you steer off the road, EricMagic.

BLM license/fee is about $500,000 and much of that may be refunded.

A few weeks after 9/11 I went to this strip mall off Ventura Blvd to get a couple of those car American flags that clip on to your windows. So I give my money to this nice Armenian guy who had set up the store on a lark to cash in on the craze (like when fireworks stands spring up in late June.) When I got home and unrolled the flags, they were missing the blue part! And the stars! It was just red stripes! Like an English soccer club! So I go back and say "Hey dude, these aren't american flags!" and he's like "yes, they are! They're flags" And finally he gave me a refund. Is that what you think the BLM will do with BM's land use fee?

Basic free labor from many persons.

I hear ya. That JOTS guy who stuck his hand into the shit centerfuge to retrieve my wet wipe is my kind of volunteer. Reminds me of when I was in college at Pepperdine, a christian school, and some of the more rightous bible thumpers would offer to clean your on-campus apartment toilet in the spirit of WWJD. I hear some of those guys went on to become human shields in Baghdad. Awesome.

Free tickets to others who do a little more or pretend to do a little more.

This point doesn't support your argument and should be stricken immediately. How does the org's bottom line benefit from giving out free tickets? Rethink and submit again.

Small amount to the company that does the fireworks and burning.

I believe the name of the company is "Beverly Hills Fireworks & Burning." They charge an assload. If you asked me, I think the org could trim their costs if they went with a company without "Beverly Hills" in the name. But for some people it's all about status.

Whoever states this event is not about selling stuff and making gobs of money is seriously delusional.

I think it's Whomever states this event, blah, blah, blah. But I'm not sure. Whomever sounds weird, though, doesn't it?

I bet "whom" stays in the A.P. stylebook maybe one or two more generations then it'll be gone. Like the Whig party.

Remember, do not always believe what you read, hear, or even see.

You left out taste, touch and smell. Which, coincidentally, are the first senses to fall prey to a breakdown in mental faculties. Crazy people, to use a medical term, often cite odd smells (the smell of burnt hair, e.g.) before lapsing into full on dementia. Anyway, you were saying?

Believe the verifiable actions, the lowness of human nature, and the real things that go on behind closed doors.

C'mon, EricMagic, you're better than that. Where did this nasty world view come from? The lowness of human nature? Closed doors? Bro, this is a group that throws a week-long party in the desert! On a budget of $7.5 million. That's the budget of one and a half episodes of LAW & ORDER! Post Jerry Orbach! Seriously! Even if Larry Harvey was cooking the books he's still no higher up the socio-economic totem pole than some bootlick associate VP at GOOGLE. Jezus!

Is everyone happy in the land of Burning Man Oz?

Fair to midland, actually.

eticket66 · Post by **eticket66** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 4:27 am

[quote] You bring up some valid points, but I am not so sure that its as simple as a 'increase in numbers' problem. I think you started to touch on it with stating that 'virgins may actually get it.' I dont believe a documentary exists that can adaquately describe what a community is all about, especially one as socially diverse, heavily oriented around art, and largely a volunteer oriented effort as bman is. Almost by default, I think putting it on a commercialized and syndicated network puts it at odds with many of the events principals.
[/quote]

I agree no documentary ever has, or will, cover BM (or any complex subject) adequately. But we all came here based on limited information ourselves, right? Some newbies participate in the art and spirit of BRC, and others don't. I'm just being optimistic that some of the virgins may get it - not necessarily all before they arrive, but perhaps once they get a taste. This remains to be seen.

Now I'm guessing you meant the event's *principles* (as in a belief system) rather than 'principal', i.e. Larry Harvey. Commercial media coverage is clearly not at odds with the latter given the number of TV crews that have been here over the years. LH has been quoted as broadly condemning TV, but in practice this has never really been the case. This is *not* the first time Discovery Channel has filmed here.

My larger point being, the "we're hawking products for big business and burning man is ruined" argument is - very - old news. BM has been extensively covered in mainstream media for many years. Did Discovery Channel ruin burning man the first time they showed up? Maybe a gun toting, 80mph rooftop surfing oldbie may think so, but I haven't seen it myself.

If you choose to think in these terms, we've been whoring for MSNBC, NBC, CNN, Disc., etc for a long time. We are unwittingly promoting GE, Microsoft, nuclear power, and all the good and services in the TV ads. Network and local news aren't exempt, either. TV News has been a profit center for many years - we're hawking products for them too.

Somehow, given this vast whoredom, burning man has managed to flourish.

Of course BM has gone through huge changes and I do think the media has contributed to some of that growth (such as influencing my decision to attend in '97) but from my perspective the media hasn't increased the percentage of yahoos or ruined the event. Yahoos have been coming to BRC longer than I have.

Despite my long-winded take on the status quo, I tend to agree with you about *principles*. It would be fine with me if no boardcast or cable network had ever been allowed to run a story, feature or program about burning man. But given the track record, I don't believe the major media is going away anytime soon, and so long as the powers-that-be retain the right to sign off on these projects, I'll maintain a wary and watchful eye. As I started to mention in an earlier post.. realistically, what I'd like to see, is:

1) to KNOW in advance what crews will be coming so I can choose whether or not to be around them
2) to have them plainly identifiable
3) to put them through some kind of volunteer bootcamp or initiation - something to encourage participation and a 'burner attitude'. Some of these people are real boneheads and shouldn't be allowed to just grab their stories and run home.
4) to know when these shows, articles, etc. will appear
5) to have a feedback process so if the show - or the crew behavior sucks, we can appeal to ban that media outlet from future coverage.

I welcome your input.

- Randy

PS. Hey how come I can't make those quote boxes like y'all??

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:02 am

First, I really don't care how much money Larry Harvey and the LLC make on Burning Man. As far as I'm concerned I hope they all ride off into the sunset stinking rich from this. If you know the history of this event, then you know it hasn't been easy. Hell, they had to fight the cops from stealing the gate money one year!

This isn't about money for me. If Larry Harvey wanted to do a one hour Discovery Times Channel episode that only featured his art (the man, funded art works, etc). I'd be fine with that.

The problem I have is with the LLC selling something that does not belong to them, namely the art, images and likeness of the citizens of Black Rock City, and the community (drink) that we all help to build.

My larger point being, the "we're hawking products for big business and burning man is ruined" argument is - very - old news. BM has been extensively covered in mainstream media for many years

Here's the thing, if there has ever been a 1 hour featured reality t.v. show on Burning Man, please point me to it. I'm not saying there hasn't been, but I've never seen it. (I've heard about a "Wild-On" show with a partial clip of the event, but I've never seen this episode and I'm not sure if it was rumor or what)

Is the Discovery Channel's previous shows on Burning Man that you're referencing the "Monster Nation" show featuring Draka and La Contessa? If so, that program was not filmed at the event but rather featured those art cars and was shot on playa not during the event. If you're talking about a different show please explain.

I've also said this before and I'll say it again. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEWS AND REALITY TV. I know that local news can get pretty sensational, but it's a one time reporting where as this program will run in syndication seemingly forever.

Imagine this scenario: Brittney Spears is paid to play at Burning Man and Pepsi films her performance there for a t.v. concert. The LLC receives a "site fee" for this. Only particpants who sign a waiver are filmed, but the backgrounds, and city scape of BRC are present through out.

In this scenario the community (drink) would go crazy. You would have people boycotting the event, people would say it's sold out, there would be a huge outcry.

Now the only difference between that scenario and the one that is actually happening is this: Brittney is getting paid and you're NOT! It's exactly the same thing, but in reality, the Discovery Times Channel isn't paying you to be the star of their tv show.

With few exceptions, reality shows are profitable from Day One for the studios that make them. The typical sitcom or drama pays off later, when it gets to reruns, or never at all.

from: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0317/088_print.html

Reality TV doesn't cost a lot to produce. No accident that a frugal Dutchman saw the potential and took it much further than Survivor's creators (idea man Charlie Parsons and dealmaker Mark Burnett, both Brits). "This changes the whole profit model of television," gloats De Mol, who keeps a gimlet eye on the bottom line. An hour of Big Brother cost $286,000 during the first season (it's more now). An average half hour of sitcom costs $1.3 million (add millions if it has a pampered cast like Friends'). Reality TV also provides plenty of room to develop other sources of revenue, from premium-price call-in charges to database marketing.

Randy, I do like your suggestions and I agree with them.

PS- When you using the

tags you cannot have a space before the next quote box and the next word.

phlo · Post by **phlo** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:12 am

This is *not* the first time Discovery Channel has filmed here.

My larger point being, the "we're hawking products for big business and burning man is ruined" argument is - very - old news. BM has been extensively covered in mainstream media for many years....

If you choose to think in these terms, we've been whoring for MSNBC, NBC, CNN, Disc., etc for a long time.

Yes, that's true, but this Discovery Channel news is the first bit of information with clear facts that has broken out to the community before the event has happened and that is important.

Burning Man sets up rules and then makes exceptions to this rule.

For instance:
No vending (except for ice and coffee).
No advertising -- cover up your rental trucks, remove all logos (except for the Burning Man logo).

And Larry Harvey has gone on record numerous times for being anti-media, it's true.

It speaks of hypocrisy when an organization such as this says one thing, but then does another. It's indicative of what goes on behind the scenes.

How can BMorg really lay down the rules of no commerce and no advertising and then turn around and do it anyway? What is the BMorg's official policy on the media? It is not stated anywhere that I can find.

Somehow, given this vast whoredom, burning man has managed to flourish.

Yes, it flourishes on the backs of volunteers who work for free because they believe it is something it is not. Their 10 Principles (as set here: http://www.burningman.com/whatisburning ... iples.html are bogus. We are told as volunteers to give of our time, our labor, our art with no compensation because that is the antithesis of gifting (see principle #2). And yet, the vast whoredom of Burning Man as you put it, flies in the face of principle #3: "In order to preserve the spirit of gifting, our community seeks to create social environments that are unmediated by commercial sponsorships, transactions, or advertising. We stand ready to protect our culture from such exploitation."

This inconsistency is unacceptable. I stand and wait to for a coherent revision of these principles in light of the BMorgs actions against them. I also stand and wait to see what the official BMorg policy on the media is in light of these principles and I expect the two to be congruent.

ZaphodBurner · Post by **ZaphodBurner** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:28 pm

EricMagic wrote: Overall there is very low overhead too.

Overhead is low for holding Burning Man?

You mean except for building the man, awarding art grants, trucks for hauling the shit out there, paying for the land, the trash fence, the shitters, the surveying equipment, the generators for the power grid, Johnny on the Spot pumping the toilets daily, the fees, the legal representation each year...
...

"Low overhead"?!

-c

eticket66 · Post by **eticket66** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 4:03 pm

[quote="Chai Guy"]The problem I have is with the LLC selling something that does not belong to them, namely the art, images and likeness of the citizens of Black Rock City, and the community (drink) that we all help to build.[/quote]

I don't like it either - and I'd prefer the media not be here at all. I'm pragmatic though in the sense that I think a total ban is unrealistic at this point. Clearly we all agree a lot more transparency is necessary. To split hairs a bit, a release *is* required for your likeness if there's any chance of you being identifiable on screen. Unless our ticket grants tacit approval (does it? I'm not sure), we have control over this. For what it's worth, I'm deeply involved with rights issues. Costumes covering the face may or may not be a rights loophole favoring a show - it depends on the prevailing climate of cash settlements.

[quote="Chai Guy"]Here's the thing, if there has ever been a 1 hour featured reality t.v. show on Burning Man, please point me to it. I'm not saying there hasn't been, but I've never seen it.[/quote]

The Discovery special was called "The Burning Man", and I wouldn't label it reality, more documentary. It was a one-hour special, aired in primetime, plus repeats, and I'm sure lots of ad time was sold. This was mentioned more to show precedence in response to the "hawking products" argument than to highlight how one classifies shows. After all, a sellout is a sellout, therefore contrary to the principles of burning man. Is it OK for us to make distinctions, then hold the LLC to a hardline? That's not consistent. I'm OK with some distinctions made by both sides, I simply want better guidelines and more transparency.

[quote="Chai Guy"]I've also said this before and I'll say it again. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEWS AND REALITY TV. I know that local news can get pretty sensational, but it's a one time reporting where as this program will run in syndication seemingly forever.[/quote]

True, there is a difference, and I'll grant that network news is often better than what passes for 'reality'. Local news is in my opinion horrendous - easily as bad as a reality show. Again, I was referring to the commercialization argument, so your position is inconsistent with the BM principles as written, but I'm fine with your distinction.

Now 'Reality Show' gets into semantics and you have a broader definition than me. For instance, I once worked on a show that has much in common with LaDuff's "Only in America". Call it a hosted magazine show about quirky Americana, with a comedic flavor, focusing on festivals. Sound familiar? This would be considered Reality by you, thereby lumping it in with Monster Garage or Survivor. To me it had nothing in common with that shite. But if you read the blurbs or saw the promo spots, then yes, you might get the impression that we were sensationalizing our subjects. Until you saw the show. The cliche "sell the sizzle, not the steak" comes to mind.

"Only in America" is in a similar category as my old gig, as it's a hosted, magazine-style show. It's neither news, documentary, nor 'reality' in the phony drama or competition sense. I don't necessarily assume it'll be as bad as you do, and unlike you I also think a Pulizter-winning journalist is somewhat of an indication that the result doesn't need to be a bottom-feeding exercise. I've read the episode descriptions - flashy as expected. I write these kinds of show blurbs too, and we really punch it up for effect.

re: syndication, do you mean actual syndication or ad naseum repeats? English speaking on-camera hosts aren't usually good candidates for international markets - though this could easily show up in Canada or the UK. If you're talking about repeats, and the show sucks, then yeah we're stuck with a piece of shit for around 2 or 3 seasons, tapering down as new shows are added.

So I think we may differ in our speculation about how bad the show could be, and of course, ultimately how much damage it might inflict. Really, we're all just guessing here.

But I agree with Phlo in principle, any commercilization is ultimately against BM's spirit. And I also accept it as having always been here, so I'd like to mitigate it rather than take a hardline approach

- Randy

(I left no space after quote marks, but quotes still don't work for me. I'm using firefox on a mac if that matters.)[quote][/quote][quote][/quote][quote][/quote]

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 4:16 pm

I'm just being optimistic that some of the virgins may get it - not necessarily all before they arrive, but perhaps once they get a taste. This remains to be seen.

Do you think things have worked out well with virgins over the years? I think we might disagree on that, because there are a lot of things that go on to bring them along a path of education. I believe most gain knowledge through word-of-mouth and personal contact with other burners - so much that I think its the majority. I also think that is a problem, but I dont think the infomercialized approach is the right one to take.

Now I'm guessing you meant the event's *principles* (as in a belief system) rather than 'principal', i.e. Larry Harvey. Commercial media coverage is clearly not at odds with the latter given the number of TV crews that have been here over the years. LH has been quoted as broadly condemning TV, but in practice this has never really been the case. This is *not* the first time Discovery Channel has filmed here.

Yes, and I dont believe in puutting my support behind the other attempts.

My larger point being, the "we're hawking products for big business and burning man is ruined" argument is - very - old news.

It may be an old argument to us, but many people lack even basic knowledge of all this. Despite the fact that it has been attempted several times does not excuse it for me, its a greater reason to keep fighting it.

But given the track record, I don't believe the major media is going away anytime soon, and so long as the powers-that-be retain the right to sign off on these projects, I'll maintain a wary and watchful eye.

Exactly, I am with you on this. I would even extend another reason for extra caution is the past history of the org misunderstanding the will and intention of a lot of long term supporters.

3) to put them through some kind of volunteer bootcamp or initiation - something to encourage participation and a 'burner attitude'. Some of these people are real boneheads and shouldn't be allowed to just grab their stories and run home.

Now thats a new idea.

5) to have a feedback process so if the show - or the crew behavior sucks, we can appeal to ban that media outlet from future coverage.

Yep, but from Chai's experience you can see thats not happening, and DEFINATELY one of the things I fight for - accountability to the community.

Quote boxing - you can try using the bbtag buttons you see at the top, just under the subject box - or you can manually quote by typing [ quote ] and ending [ / quote ] without the spaces.

ZaphodBurner · Post by **ZaphodBurner** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:23 pm

I don't think your average e-tard or the people with the kinds of mentalities detrimental to BM are big Discovery Channel geeks, so they probably won't see it unless they're channel surfing. Plus, DC is going to aim for a higher intellectual audience than, say, E! or Fox. (No Wild-On, no Stern, no Wife Swapping, etc)

My non-burner friends who always bat e-mails around about whatever was on Discovery last night are the type who will a) never go anyway or b) they're engineers, chemists, history geeks and other types of people who actually read books and think about things. Not exactly the Girls Gone Wild demographic.

I am, of course, an optimist.

-c

eticket66 · Post by **eticket66** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:44 pm

I finally figured out quotes - it was disabled in my "options". Thanks!

Do you think things have worked out well with virgins over the years? I think we might disagree on that, because there are a lot of things that go on to bring them along a path of education. I believe most gain knowledge through word-of-mouth and personal contact with other burners - so much that I think its the majority. I also think that is a problem, but I dont think the infomercialized approach is the right one to take.

Fair enough, though I've known people who've been multiple times that still haven't figured it out - and they came because of friends rather than media. I'm biased because the Wired Mag article in '96 was a big influence on me. If you had seen me then! I think the path of education is/has worked for me.. path is a good word.

This is *not* the first time Discovery Channel has filmed here.
Yes, and I dont believe in puutting my support behind the other attempts.

That's fine. Myself, I'm less inclined to put the cat back in the bag and lean instead toward greater accountability.

But given the track record, I don't believe the major media is going away anytime soon, and so long as the powers-that-be retain the right to sign off on these projects, I'll maintain a wary and watchful eye.
Exactly, I am with you on this. I would even extend another reason for extra caution is the past history of the org misunderstanding the will and intention of a lot of long term supporters.
I was perhaps less aware of this, so I'm glad you brought it up. At my second burn a large crew with a crane and 16mm cameras were there to capture the burn night. High budget production. I could be wrong, but I think they were from an Australian network. I wasn't thrilled, but grudgingly accepted it as the status-quo. I was involved at the time with Playa Video, so I recognize the difference between what we were doing compared with that crew, but because of my background their presence obviously bothered me less than some. So I understand that some long time supporters felt slighted.

5) to have a feedback process so if the show - or the crew behavior sucks, we can appeal to ban that media outlet from future coverage.
Yep, but from Chai's experience you can see thats not happening, and DEFINATELY one of the things I fight for - accountability to the community

Which leads me to a question. The discussion has been enlightening and fascinating, and taken a fair amount of computer time, but what is the next step? Even though I don't believe a total ban on TV is warranted or consistent with other commercial media being allowed at BRC, those of us active in this thread CLEARLY agree on several key points about the future of media coverage on the playa, i.e. accountability, openness, feedback, etc. Whether my less-than-hardline viewpoint excludes me or not from this campaign remains to be seen, but I'd like to see some changes.

So what now? With all due respect for the efforts of Chai Guy and daBomb, you guys were slighted at Center Camp, if not ignored by decision makers.

I'll probably fade out of this thread myself shortly unless some kind of proposal spurs me forward. Or is this simply a dialog?

- Randy

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 6:14 pm

We will be getting the word out within the next few days about a course of action that we plan on taking. We will have representatives for each of the major decoms offering information for those interested, along with a letter writing campaign to be launched soon. If anyone wants to help out with any of this please email me at [email protected] or just pm me here on eplaya. Thanks!

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:34 pm

Hey Everyone,

We've tried to present the facts as we know them. We have asked for some kind of official response from the LLC and we haven't received it. The latest issue of the JRS mentioned nothing of Discovery Channel.

So now is the time for action. We'd like to ask you to take a look at this website: http://www.savebrc.org and to voice your opinion to us and to the LLC. We are going to be at the LA and SF Decoms with the intention of letting as many people know about this issue as possible. If you could help us spread the word we would greatly appreciate it. We would appreciate it even more if you expressed yourself to the LLC on this issue.

If you would like to volunteer to help out, especially if you plan on attending a regional or decom event, please email me at: [email protected] and we can let you know how you can help.

Thanks so much.

- Chai Guy

Zulegoona · Post by **Zulegoona** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:19 pm

Just thinking ,... If I wanted to grow a movement that championed art and artists, and other personal expression ,and creativity, the idea of self reliance and the idea of building community threw involvement and personal participation I’d take a lesson from pop culture and political campaigns.

1. nearly any exposure is good exposure, particularly if it doesn’t cost you anything.

2. The MTV example, as a band you want your video on the play list, it’s advertising for your to recordings and the brand that is your band. Other people pay for your advertising , with there advertising so you get yours free.

3. At least since the time of Benjamin Franklin, news and by extension documentaries have not been unbiased. In recent years since Michel Moore, they don’t even having to have the pretence of an unbiased point of view. People and advertisers will pay you to hear your point of view, and feel your presenting them with the truth. Even if they don’t then there is controversy and that is free exposure.

4. The presidential example; If you have something or are somebody media wants access to you have the power to shape the message they present. In most cases, the media doesn’t care what they present as long as they have something to present that people are interested in. That translates to viewer ship which translates to advertising money.

It seems to me by playing the game you have a real chance to advance your agenda and change the world if you don’t , you have a quaint little group of eccentric odd balls at a big party.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:35 pm

That's great, but why the secrecy? No mention of this was made in the Jack Rabbit Speaks prior to the event or in the latest issue subsequent to the event? If this is such a positive thing for the community, why not involve the community?

you have the power to shape the message they present.

Honestly, I couldn't disagree with this more. Have you ever been interviewed by the media? They come equipped with their own agenda, the story board has been drawn prior to them showing up with the camera.

When I asked Action Girl if she had seen the preview, she said that she had and that the episode on Burning Man was not going to be anything like the previews. HA! , so are we to believe that Discovery Channel is going to change their entire format just for us?? That's delusional thinking.

This is a commerce free event, taking a commerce free event and selling it to the most commercial medium known to man no longer makes it commerce free.

eticket66 · Post by **eticket66** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:53 pm

When I asked Action Girl if she had seen the preview, she said that she had and that the episode on Burning Man was not going to be anything like the previews. HA! , so are we to believe that Discovery Channel is going to change their entire format just for us?? That's delusional thinking.

Is it? I've seen 3 episodes of this show.

Zulegoona · Post by **Zulegoona** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 pm

Actually wouldn’t the event still be commerce free since the sales aren't taking place at the event?

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:03 pm

Is it? I've seen 3 episodes of this show.

Care to offer a review?

Actually wouldn’t the event still be commerce free since the sales aren't taking place at the event?

It's commodification of the event. I see a huge hypocrisy in the philosophies of covering up the logos on rental vans at the event vs. filming the event and splashing corporate logos across the screen for profits.

Zulegoona · Post by **Zulegoona** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:39 pm

Hypocrisy maybe, as would be running down any particular type of attendee to the event when one of the philosophical under pining is radical inclusion. hypocrisy doesn’t negate the principal . Purity is an illation and in reality not even particularly desirable.

The main site has had it’s own Marketplace for years.

Burning Man it’s self is a corporation.

I would guess much of the art work seen on the Playa is produced by corporations like the Temple of Gravity was $20,000 from burning man and the remainder of the costs were covered by individual investors who I’m sure are hoping to see a profit once the work is eventually sold .

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:00 pm

I would guess much of the art work seen on the Playa is produced by corporations like the Temple of Gravity was $20,000 from burning man and the remainder of the costs were covered by individual investors who I’m sure are hoping to see a profit once the work is eventually sold .

The Temple of Gravity and Colossus (aka "the hippie smasher") are the exceptions, not the rule. The investors and artists on those projects formed LLC's to protect themselves from liability and to ensure the money was handled in an appropriate manner. No one is going to be able to quit their job and live off the proceeds from their sales. Most of the art out there is produced by individual artists and small collectives, and is never sold. (If you have seen any of these art projects when they return from the playa you can understand why, unless it was made from steel and rock, it's probably FUBAR).

Most of the art out there is NOT funded by borg1 or borg2.

eticket66 · Post by **eticket66** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:13 pm

Chai Guy wrote:
Is it? I've seen 3 episodes of this show.
Care to offer a review?

You know Ron, I'll give a review - with reservations - because so much of this argument against Discovery was speculation based on those awful reality shows they air. I think Disc. has a split personality - their older style was more uniformly interesting and docu style, and still defines a fair amount of what they do. In any case, this aired on Discovery Times, which from what I've seen so far leans more toward the journalistic/docu side of entertainment.

I watched "Gay Rodeo", (Oakland) "Fight Club" and "Minor League Footbal". It's very much in the tradition of George Plimpton, who tried to immerse himself in the stories he covered. "Fight Club" was my favorite, and - surprise - briefly featured some of the Thunderdome/Death Guild peeps. LeDuff in my opinion is pretty good - he seems to make a real attempt to understand the soul of the Fight Club and from the looks of it, cultivates a mutually respectful relationship with them. He makes no bones about being an outsider, but wants to gain some semblance of understanding and of course, to participate to a degree. In this case, he decides to fight, knows his ass is going to get kicked by his opponent, but trains hard and gets to know the other guy a bit personally. He truly likes his opponent, who is a fascinating person in his own right.

From my perspective, he doesn't paint his subjects as freaks in an exploitive sense, he tries to identify who they are, what they do and why, and to a lessor extent identify with them - and he knows he can't in any large sense. LeDuff handles all the voiceover narration in a first person journalist feature style. This is not a 'reality show' in the popular sense of the phrase, though it shares a few (very few) so-called cinema verite moments of drama between characters - a style element that reality shows co-opted and bastardized from 1960's docs. It seems to me as LeDuff fashions himself as a surrogate for the viewing audience, who might relate with him as an outsider but want to experience the culture vicariously while sitting on their arses.

He seems to have the same effect on his subjects in Gay Rodeo and Minor League football. They like him, know he's an outsider, but sooner or later warm up and seem to respect him for making the effort to get to know them. Occasionally he's in danger of coming across foolish for diving in where he doesn't always fit, but redeems himself with his thoughtful narration about the richness of his subjects.

Can you tell I think it didn't suck? I don't know if I could sit through a whole season of Charlie trying on various roles, but as a whole the show is a lot better than most of the other shite out there. I'm not going to presume that this means the BM episode will come off as well, but I think we could do a lot worse than have LeDuff cover it. If only his crew had been as truly interested as LeDuff comes across on camera..

- Randy

DaBomb · Post by **DaBomb** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:23 am

Not to be inflammatory, but here's some reviews from people who *do* think the show sucks:

http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com ... try3601925

The issue isn't really about this show per se, Randy.

The issue is about BMorg's media policy (or in the case, lack thereof) relevant to their 10 principles.

The issue is about BMorg selling media rights for an “undisclosed amount” on one hand, and the promoting “participation, gifting economy, volunteerism and non-commercialization” on the other hand, which undeniably gives an appearance of a double standard.

Discovery Channel at BM 2005

Where is the money going?

Re: Where is the money going?

Re: Where is the money going?