Two things, both relating to everyone's (or at least everyone from Ohio) favorite whipping-post state, Michigan.



First, I am thrilled and ecstatic to see University of Michigan basketball going down in flames. In the early 90s when "C-Web", et al were there it was hard to watch SportsCenter (let alone local news) without seeing someone from the Michigan basketball team bragging about being the greatest collection of basketball players in college basketball history. It's debateable, the truth of that statement; they were a very good team. But, it's also easy to see why there was so much animosity towards them. I have to admit that my greatest moment in college sports history is NOT seeing Christian Laetner sink the winning the shot against Kentucky; it was seeing Chris Webber call a timeout in the NCAA finals with 2 (9?) seconds left only to find out they didn't have any timeouts remaining. ESPN Classic could show that over and over and I would never get bored; maybe do a 'Behind the Scenes' like they did with Christian Laetner's shot; THAT I would watch. This whole 'scandal' is only unfortunate in that it doesn't show that they were a worse team than originally thought; it only shows that they were a better paid team than originally thought. I like that the NCAA lets teams sanction themselves; I think it forces schools to be creative. All the schools have seen what the NCAA imposes (Miami, Arkansas, etc. I'm looking in YOUR direction) and they'd rather be strict and creative themselves than have to give up recruiting for a decade or any of the other sanctions that the NCAA might impose.



Second, I admit I have not yet seen the movie (I plan to this weekend), but I have a feeling that this whole '8 Mile' thing is just a big commercial for Eminem. Companies, especially companies charged with marketing someone 'anti-corporate' like Eminem, need to find a way to get people to buy their product and let's be honest, the RIAA wants to see people buying more CDs. Consumers are becoming more jaded and are paying less attention to traditional advertising means (billboards, commercials, etc.); partly because, I think, those 'traditional means' have become so pervasive. You can't 10 feet without seeing 800 signs urging to buy some 'hip' new product; eventually rather than waste your time sorting out the good from the bad, you ignore them all and buy what you want. The problem is that most companies don't want you 'buying' what you want because you end going to the store and buying some 'local' brand over the nationally-available product that is spending (wasting?) their money advertising to you. As a result, companies have resorted to product placement to sell well-known products by putting them in context; if you see James Bond using a Sony (BMW, Mercedes, Astin Martin, etc.) you want a Sony because James Bond is cool and he can do cool things with his cool product. You go out and buy it; of course, you have to buy the top-of-the-line one because the intro products don't do what James Bond can do with them. This type of advertising is much more lucrative and effective for everyone involved; the movie/tv studios get to charge more, the manufacturer gets exclusive advertising for a full hour of your time and the consumer gets to see the product in use. Many marketing people seem to think this is the wave of the marketing future; jaded consumers need to be advertised to more subtly and by attaching a product to a person it allows the manufacturer to optimally position their product. If they want white, males with lots of disposable income and discerning taste they attach to James Bond, if they want black, males with strong family values and a strong sense of race they attach to Damon Wayans, etc. It's not stereotyping, it's marketing, these are the majority markets and if the manufacturer wants their product in front of that eyeball they can either run a commercial during the show and hope you didn't get up to go to the bathroom or they can pay for product placement and just have the person/character use their product. So, where is all this going and what does it have to do with "8 Mile"? Well, my 'jaded consumer' outlook tells me that even Eminem can only support so many albums (without touring, which he - or any rapper - does very little of) before people stop buying them. This has traditionally been a problem with Rap music; it's a very fickle (note: not discerning!) market whose tastes and attitudes change quickly. Sustaining selling-power over 3 albums is difficult; Puffy couldn't do it, Jay-Z couldn't do, Tupac had trouble doing it, and those are just some of the black rappers. Music stars, have a history of using film to exploit themselves; The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Yes, Brittney Spears have all done it to some extent (successfully or not) or another. Is "8 Mile" just a case of placing the product at the center of the film?


---Jeff---