Technology+Culture+People // テクノロジーとか、人とか、文化とか。

Sudden resolution of cognitive incongruencies often causes a rush or euphoria that includes joy and laughter (Berlyne, 1969; Zillman, 2000a). Humor (including funny jokes) develops from a puzzling incongruency that suddenly is resolved. The resolution is often due to a plot or punch-line that allows the audience to comprehend and to solve such incongruency. But the case of nonsense humor, a resolution might just as well bethe realization that there is nothing to resolve (cf. Zillman, 2000a).

Bryant, J. (2008). Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (Lea’s Communication Series). New York: Routledge. P. 541

So humor seems to root from either the plot or punchline resolving a proposed problem, or a discovery that there was no problem to start with. This seems to be one of the problems when describing Japanese humor, because Western humor seems to assume the presence of linearity in the context, flow, and a resolution in any form of humor. On the other hand, there are more humor in Japan (and perhaps Eastern nations) that even lack the context in which incongruities can be proposed.

I wonder if it has to do with the high degree of cultural agreement of what can be considered “funny” or not, and that that takes the need away of contextual linearity?

I mean, how do you explain this?

»English Article (via: Online Media Daily)

In its success, however, lie the seeds of value destruction for its TV network creators… The report derives the figure of $920 per viewer lost to Hulu by estimating that Hulu runs four ads each hour at a $50 CPM compared to 32 ads during each hour of programming on TV at a $35 CPM. ($1,120-$200 = $920). Hulu has not disclosed actual ad sales or ad rates.

The convergence of TV and web is a dilemma in itself. While the Internet can provide contents at lower cost and higher convenience, the only reason why services such as Hulu can attract users is because of the programs that they provide. If the current business model sustains and therefore revenues from TV commercials continues to decline, with all else held constant, the quality of any given show will diminish due to simply budget cuts. As long as the industry continues to be on board with the current business model, only those who can provide popular shows will survive and the rest will be history. “Survival of the fittest,” I guess.

How do we break this negative spiral? How can we create a win-win situation for both TV and Internet? I think the first step is to carefully analyze the differences of those two media. TV is a public medium, where as the Internet is very private. TV is capable of sending mass messages whereas the Internet is better at sending targeted messages. TV has a time constraint in which one can view a show, whereas the Internet is capable of on-demand streaming. TV shows and commercials generate higher cost and revenue than that of Internet videos.

Perhaps a good strategy is to use the Internet as a place of experimentation, which is commonly seen by amateur creators on YouTube and other video sharing websites. Professional productions should move to the Internet as a forum of experimenting new entertainment. The low-cost-low-risk environment coupled with a great potential of buzz creation makes Internet an ideal “playground” for creators to innovate. After such experimentation, those that seem to work can be broadcasted on air to cause wider awareness to a more general audience. This will not only push the creative limits of existing TV entertainment, but also will contribute in providing a continuous flow of fresh and unseen forms of entertainment, giving viewers a reason not to abandon their TV sets and cable contracts.

A very good example of this is BeeTV, a Japanese mobile-based movie streaming service. By paying a monthly fee of roughly $4, users gain access to a variety of original programs (that are not re-runs or existing programs distributed by external vendors, conglomerates and cable TV stations) on their mobile phone. There are many experimental programs being distributed through this service, and because more Japanese consumers access the Internet through their mobile phones than computers, the number of registered users are in a rapid increase.

Another extremely interesting and unique case of CGM is Nico Nico Douga, a popular Japanese video sharing website. The uniquess of this website comes from the high degree of user involvement. The most distinguishing feature of this website is that any user can anonymously comment on the uploaded videos, and every user can view comments of one another. An example can be seen here. This is one of the popular MAD videos that remixes an anime opening with Ronald McDonald. The letters the flowing from the right to the left are archived user comments (or annotations). The entertainment is not created when the video is uploaded. In fact, that is merely the first step in Nico Nico Douga. User comments constitute a large part of entertainment of each video, and therefore this annotation feature creates a high degree of consumer involvement in creating a constantly-evolving entertainment media.

Although neither of the above have succeeded in providing their successful contents to TV media, they themselves have been successful in creating buzz and revenue from their own experimental contents production.

It’s now time for creators to stop panicking, take a step back, and analyze what can be best done in each of the tools that they have access to in order to create the best value for both the industry and their consumers.

————————————————————————————–

凄いデータだね。テレビ番組のネット配信がどれだけの脅威かを物語っている気がする。

ただ、Huluのような、第三者団体が行うテレビ番組のネット配信にはジレンマがある。それは、彼らのようなサービスが出現することによってテレビ局の広告収入が減り、そのせいで個々の番組の質が下がり、最終的には放送できる番組の絶対数をも脅かしてしまう事。つまり、結果的には配信できる番組の質とバラエティーが減っちゃうんだよね。これでは共倒れ。意味が無い。

では、どうすればいいのだろう。この点に関しては、日本はアメリカよりも相当進んでいる気がする。日本では既にテレビとネットの相関性というか「位置づけ」が、ビジネスの側面からはっきり捉えられている傾向があると思う。例えばBeeTVとかはその良い例で、携帯動画配信というプラットフォームを使って、比較的少ない予算で実験的な番組を多く配信している。ネット配信だとミランカとかが良い例かも。これらで実験的に制作された作品の中からうまくいったモノを地上波に持っていけば、あたるか外れるか分からない博打のような番組制作をしなくても良くなるし、実験的なベースから新しいテレビ番組が作られていくので、常に視聴者に新しいエンターテイメントを提供できる気がする。

あと、日本のコンテンツ市場の更に秀逸な部分は、ニッチではあるけども、ニコニコ動画のようなかなり濃いユーザーベースを持ったコミュニティーが存在するという所。最近のニコニコは刺激に欠けるし、まだビジネスモデルを模索している状態ではあるけれども、数多くのMADや初音ミクなど、今までに比類の無い形のエンターテイメントを数々のユーザーが一つのムーブメントとして作り上げている。これほどまでにユーザーが自分の欲求を満たす為だけにモノ作りに励むコミュニティーは、絶対に珍しいし、大切にしなければ行けないと思う。

最近ロイターやCNNでも取り上げられている日本の草食系男子。ウィキペディアによると、特徴は以下の通り：

1. 恋愛やセックスに縁がないわけではないのに、積極的でない
2. 女性を単なる異性対象ではなく、ひとりの人間として平等に尊重する傾向が強い
3. 恋愛至上主義的な風潮に踊らされずに、家族や仲間と過ごすのを大切にする
4. 傷つけられたり、他人を傷つけることを嫌い繊細である
5. 恋愛に使わないエネルギーは趣味や仕事、ファッションに向かう
6. 女性に誘われれば旅行やショッピングに同行するが、恋愛に発展しないことが多い
7. 性風俗を無駄なことと思い、お金を使わない
8. いい人止まりになりがち
9. 女性と一晩過ごしても何もせずに普通に寝る
10. 外出より部屋にいる方が好き
11. 甘いものや料理が好き
12. 国内旅行は好むが海外旅行に対する興味は薄い

2、3、4、7、10と、僕にも当てはまる項目が結構見当たるんだけど、男性からすると要するに「男らしくない」っていう捉え方が出来ると思う。特に、いわゆる「草食系男子」を想像してみると、そこから男らしさがほとばしるイメージはわかないよね。個人的には、草食系男子みたいな言葉が市民権を得て、決して少なくはない数の男性がそういうライフスタイルの選択をしていることは悪い事ではないと思う。「ジェンダータイプ」を強制されないでも飢え死にしないで生きていけるのは、とても恵まれている事だと思う。

ただその反面、この言葉を隠れ蓑に、面倒だったり、億劫だったり、怖い事から逃げている人もたくさん居ると思う。「僕、草食系だから…」とは言葉には出さなくても、何か思い切った決断が出来なかったときにこの言葉が頭をよぎったりする人は、絶対に居ると思う。

「草食系男子」という言葉を最初に提唱した深澤真紀さん曰く、いわゆる草食系男子の特徴をもった男性は、彼女がその言葉を提唱する前からたくさん居たそうだ（そりゃそうだよね）。きっと昔の草食系男子達は、社会が持つ「男性像」（ジェンダータイプ）に自分たちが当てはまらないことを少し窮屈に思っていて、仲間はずれに感じてた気がする。だからこそ、この言葉が提唱されてから、それに共感できるたくさんの男性達がその言葉に飛びついて、それを自分たちのアイデンティティーとして捉え、「こういうライフスタイルがあっても良いじゃないか」とみんなで宣言しているような気がする。少なくともこの言葉の爆発的な広がりは、一男性としてのアイデンティティーと社会が押し付けるジェンダータイプの狭間に今までずっと苦しんでいた人達の、葛藤の反動のような気がする。

繰り返すけど、草食系な生き方は、それはライフスタイルの選択だし、それぞれに理由があるから別に良くも悪くもないこと。ただ、怖い事から逃げる為に都合がいいから自分を草食系と名乗る人達は、ダメだと思う。怖いから逃げるのは当然の事だし簡単な事だけど、それじゃぁ人として前に進まない。「草食系男子」「お兄系」「ギャル系」とか、集団の中での個人のアイデンティティーを表す固有名詞は、その個人に居場所を与え、その個人とそれが属する集団（コミュニティー）との間に良好な関係を築くためのもので、その個人だけが楽に生きていく為の物では決してないと思う。草食系男子の皆様（多分僕も半分くらいはそう）、辛い事から逃げないで、胸はって草食系しましょう。

»Article by CNN

»Article by Reuters

“In Japan, sex is translated as ‘relationship in flesh,’” she said, “so I named those boys ‘herbivorous boys’ since they are not interested in flesh.” Typically, “herbivore men” are in their 20s and 30s, and believe that friendship without sex can exist between men and women.

I just want to point out one thing regarding the definition of this term.  The term “herbivorous,” does not just pertain to the passivity regarding sex and relationships, but also to any actions and lifestyle that portrays the “masculinity” of the male gender type. It’s not just about sex.

So this is a very popular topic of conversation now in Japan, and it is true, there are so many men who identify with the “herbivorous” characteristics. I guess I’m not too sure how to react to this. It’s a good thing that people have the luxury to make such decision to not work full time, not go out so often, and can have fun alone. The male gender role is not held up against all men, and those men do not have to starve because they are not “masculine.”

On the other hand, I also do think that there are a hand full of people who use the label “herbivorous” to escape from the things that intimidate them. Job searching, asking someone out on a date, going out with friends –the things that herbivorous men avoid, all of these things are time consuming, stressing, and requires one to pull money out of their pockets. As one of the articles said, there were always men with “herbivorous” traits before the term was coined, and I feel like those men were always seeking acceptance from society. And now that the term became popular in the Japanese pop culture, those “herbivorous men” have now molded themselves into the public notion of it, became a herd, and appealing that it is ok to go against both the good and bad aspects of the male gender type.

The unique aspect of this phenomena is not the fact that Japanese men are going against the male gender type. It’s rather the fact that this term has become extremely popular, popular enough that anybody on the streets will know this term, and so many men actually identify with it. Here again, the collectivist roots of the Japanese culture prevails: rather than holding the herbivorous traits as one’s own identity, they have to seek comfort and acceptance by “sharing” that identity with the other herbivorous men. Hence the term became so wide spread, and hence there are so many herbivorous men.

Is this a good or bad thing? I don’t know, and I don’t think it will ever be an argument of good and bad. It’s just the matter of lifestyle. All things work in an equilibrium. What I mean by this is the following three things: (1) those “herbivorous” men and those who aren’t can live their own lives, don’t bother each other, and be at harmony (2) or they can find their own “carnivorous” women to make them and be happy, (3) or those herbivorous men will eventually die out because they will not marry, have sex, and raise kids –it will merely be a glitch in the human history that will eventually be forgotten.