Somewhere Larry Summers is snorting and turning arrogantly away.
So, this video is the latest to capitalize on the Rube Goldberg machine structure, and it's maybe the most appropriate to do so given that the product at hand is a set of little Tinkertoy-ish building blocks aimed at girls instead of at boys. Debbie Sterling, the CEO of GoldieBlox, was a Stanford engineering major and has developed this line of toys in reaction to her own experience being one of the very few women in a field still dominated by men, and finding, among other things, that there were no engineering-oriented toys specifically aimed at girls (whereas there were a thousand and a half toys for boys or which were gender neutral like Legos).
The spot exploded once posted online, and at one point, it was among the most e-mailed 'stories' on the New York Times. Millions of views within the first week of being on YouTube, and its popularity raises a number of questions, both on a craft level and also on a cultural level.
First, the Rube Goldberg contraption structure. So satisfying, such a guaranteed crowd pleaser. What's behind us liking this kind of set up so much? Toppling dominoes, Mousetrap the game…is it the absoluteness of cause-and-effect? With each step we have premise and conclusion, and in order for the entire machine to work, every element must work/be true. The proof is physical, and on the simplest level, it's confirmation that the world operates rationally, that behind every occurence, there's a tangible precursor, some reason for it having happened. Things are connceted, it makes sense. It's possible to take this a step further and say the strict causal progression and distancing from ultimate outcome has moral implications as well, but at the very least it presents the world as logical and tidy, which is reassuring. The chaos is at least momentarily held at bay.
Do these machines operate on us the same way that good storytelling does? One thing happens which leads to another, which then leads to another--the whole thing is strictly sequential and unfolds before our eyes and ears. This is a pretty narrow view of even traditional, linear storytelling, but nonetheless, is it related to what's going on at heart? That we are hard-wired somehow to enjoy a sequence of events that in toto result in some magnificent conclusion? Bottom line, there's something about the structure that we enjoy and that something appears to be universal.
Here are two celebrated examples of the same dynamic, and I defy you resist the fun in watching them:
And of course, the first cultural touchstone in this respect (other than Goldberg's work itself):
Behind the scenes, the big news following the smash success of the GoldieBlox spot was the trouble it brewed with the Beastie Boys. Ad-Rock and Mike D were a bit miffed at the GoldieBlox people for having taken their song, changed and used it for expressedly commercial purposes without paying them or even asking them if it was okay. They protested, contacting the GB people to find out what was going on, which prompted the Goldiblox people to immediately turn around and sue the Beasties saying that their use of 'Girls' fell under the category of parody and thus was protected under current copyright law. To point from their formal complaint, filed 11.21.13 with the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California:
'In the lyrics of the Beastie Boys' song entitled Girls, girls are limited (at best) to household chores, and are presented as useful only to the extent they fulfill the wishes of the male subjects. The GoldieBlox Girls Parody Video takes direct aim at the song both visually and with a revised set of lyrics celebrating the many capabilities of girls. Set to the tune of Girls but with a new recording of the music and new lyrics, girls are heard singing an anthem celebrating their broad set of capabilities--exactly the opposite of the message of the original. They are also shown engaging in activities far beyond what the Beastie Boys song would permit. GoldieBlox created its parody video specifically to comment on the Beastie Boys song, and to further the company's goal to break down gender stereotypes and to encourage young girls to engage in activities that challenge their intellect, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math. The GoldieBlox Girls Parody Video has gone viral on the Internet, and has been recognized by the press and the public as a parody and criticism of the original song.'
Reported was Ad-Rock and Mike D's reaction to the suit, which amounted to them looking at each other, blinking twice, and going, Huh?? The pre-emptive strike from GB moved them to write an open letter in response saying:
'…We strongly support empowering young girls, breaking down gender stereotypes and igniting a passion for technology and engineering. As creative as it is, make no mistake, your video is an advertisement that is designed to sell a product, and long ago, we made a conscious decision not to permit our music and/or name to be used in any product ads. When we tried to simply ask how and why our song 'Girls' had been used in your ad without our permission, YOU sued US.'
It's worth taking a look at GB's overall strategy with their pointed choice of soundtrack. First, claiming that somehow the BBs brought this revision upon themselves by writing such retrograde lyrics is disingenuous if only because it would take the most prissy, tight-assed professional finger-wagger (which Sterling is not) to view the original song as serious, which it would have to be to warrant an earnest critique. The original song was parody meant to play with and mock the misogyny of mainstream hiphop. Anyone who's listened to Licensed to Ill even once, or remembers seeing the BBs in action back in the day, realizes that much of their stuff is parodic in nature and that they absolutely reveled in their own juvenile delinquency in constructing their public persona. Originally punk rockers, their whole hiphop direction began as a joke (Cooky Puss!), and the joke resonated in a freakishly popular way, so they kept going.
And that GB's official defense is based on the spot being parody is also fascinating. On the one hand, it somewhat deflates any attempt by the BBs to retort without seeming hypocritical since their own work was so parody-based. Yet the claim cuts both ways because how can GB state that their advertisement was parody without also recognizing that the original song was such? That the BBs message in the original song perhaps had much more in common with the GB mission than it did with media promoting damaging gender stereotypes. Logic is stretched in the complaint (not to mention that justifying the video as 'viral' and that the 'press and public' recognized the video as parody is a pretty shaky footing upon which to launch your attack), which is an indication there wasn't really much there there in terms of a valid legal defense.
Still, they original lyrics are what they are, so what they provided for GB was an opportunity. An chance to draw some attention to their product line, to stir up some controversy that would get picked up and provide some crucial holiday shopping-time publicity, and to get their corporate message out there in a way that made them look strong, virtuous almost. Clearly, they anticipated a response from the BBs, but the fact that they so readily had a countersuit to file suggests that they knew they could mount somewhat of a fight if necessary.
In fact, a fight might be desirable because factored into the calculations was that they knew the BBs would have a difficult time in the public sphere appearing to come down on an advertisement/entertainment that is about empowering little girls. Sure enough, the BBs were careful to tiptoe around the stated mission of the company saying that they were completely on board with all that, that they in fact were all for strong little girls, but that it was just the whole illegal use of their music part that irked them. GB knew that they'd always be able to claim the higher moral ground publicly, even if legally they were on ice that was sure to crack. And again, that any controversy over the spot would only lead to more viewings of the spot and, thus, more parents thinking that they might do well to empower their own little girls this Christmas, which would lead to boosted runs of GoldieBlox toys, etc..
It's nervy calculation on the part of Ms. Sterling, and says something about creating a company whose ultimate mission is largely good. They might not be treated any differently than any other business in a legal sense, but thanks to the transparency into such matters offered by the Internet, the company ultimately had a great deal more leverage than would, say, Monsanto had they decided to co-opt '(You Gotta) Fight for Your Right (To Party!)' in their latest ads for GMO corn or something. The GB complaint seems more a loud parry than actual aggressive measure, a tactic meant to draw attention and show the BBs that, look guys, it wouldn't be worth pulling out the big guns over this because you're gonna look hypocritical little girl haters and that you really do want them to do your laundry and clean up your room. I mean, you guys weren't really serious about that stuff, were you?
It seems that it wasn't quite enough to stave off the BB lawyers, and at the end of the day, it really isn't okay to just take someone else's work like that and put it in an ad for your business without getting permission. So, the GB team pulled the version with the 'Girls' soundtrack and replaced it with a version that has generic music, which is the version you see above. As of this writing, the matter is in the court system and likely headed to some kind of settlement. But victory for GoldieBlox? Yes, victory. What GB was really after was exactly what the BBs gave them, first with their song and its silly lyrics, then with their irritance and obdurate (ill?) communications, such GB could even turn around in the endgame and say (in so many words), God, if you're gonna be such dicks about this, fine we'll change our music, even though we're in the right, and by the way, thank you very much because we're currently up to our necks in product orders. The number 25 toy on Amazon. Mission accomplished.
Girl power, indeed.