So, here it is, my last post on this blog. For this time, at least. You might have thought that I would save the best for last, but that’s not the case at all. I’ve been thinking a lot about the notion of Nextopia, and I’ve come to the conclusion that it would be unfortunate to let go of all the good things today, instead of saving some for tomorrow. So, maybe I should say that this is most likely not the last post I’ll ever make.

I once had a German teacher who taught me a German saying; ”Morgen, morgen, nur nicht heute, sagen alle faulen Leute”, which means something like “Tomorrow, tomorrow, only not today, that’s what all the lazy people say”. I have pretty much lived by this saying, and ever since I learned that phrase, it has followed me through my life. I’ve always been a person who likes to get things done and not postpone what I can get done today. Or right now, even.

But I think I might have to reconsider. All the “mañana, mañana”-people might be onto something, and I’m not so sure it’s a lazy attitude anymore. It might be a smart one. I mean, why make great things today instead of making people expect you will do it in the future and have them really looking forward to it? Think about it. The whole concept of a deadline means that a project, deliverance or whatever it might be, is in a way ”dead” as soon as the line is crossed. I don’t want to completely kill the interest in myself and what I can contribute with (I hope I haven’t done so already), so this time, I’m going to postpone the deadline for my best post.

You should see this last post as a gift from me to you, because not only will I gain from holding on to my best one yet personally – you will too. Here’s why: If I post it now, the value of it would likely decrease as soon as you’ve read it and (hopefully) processed it and pondered upon it for a while. But if you expect it to be posted here or somewhere else in the future, you have something to look forward to and your expectations will bring you more joy for a longer period of time, than what you would get from reading it today.

So, instead of writing something brilliant about something that would revolutionize your thinking and completely blow you away (which I actually had prepared – the best one yet, by far), I’m going to re-write it, re-fine it and post it some other time instead… count on it.

Thanks!

Lars

Autobiographies have always been a very popular book genre and many biographies released over the past few years have sold extremely well. Books like ”How to Make Love Like a Porn Star” by Jenna Jameson and ”Living History” by Hillary Clinton are just two (very different) examples. We’ve also seen quite a few biographical megahit movies in modern times, e.g. ”Ray” about Ray Charles and ”I’m not there” about Bob Dylan. Obviously, many think that it’s very interesting to read about or see what famous people have gone through and learn about episodes in their lives. Especially if it’s their own stories told by the individuals themselves. Presidents, rock stars, pro athletes, designers and everyone who is anyone can make loads of money on writing their memoirs or turning their past into movie blockbusters. But wouldn’t it be even more interesting to read about these people’s future? Who knows, maybe “futurographies” will have its given section in bookstores (on- and off-line), in libraries and in your very own bookshelf.

Barack Obama and John McCain talked about what they had planned for the future (their future) long before Americans decided last week that Obama presented the most compelling one. What if more famous people would take a hint and present their days to come? Imagine learning in precise detail about what Richard Branson will do in the future or being able to read Oprah Winfrey’s “future diary” and know exactly how she will live the rest of her life day by day. Or would it be better if it’s not too detailed? Maybe we need some gaps to fill in with our imagination. Also, since we live in a time and place where we are attracted by things we can be involved in, and even control, there should be something in there that indicates that I could play a role in Branson’s or Winfrey’s lives. Think about the expectations building up for such a release – “be on the lookout for Branson’s upcoming futurography and see how he will – among other things – revolutionize the video game industry“ or “this fall, read all about how Oprah will celebrate Christmas in the next five years, with her soon to be adopted children. Also, see how you can get a chance to name one of the puppies her soon to be bought dog will have.” Ok, maybe that last one wouldn’t be the most intriguing story, but you get my point.

I stated that everyone who is anyone can make money from getting their life stories out there. But remember that today, everyone could be as interesting as anyone. That is, people who are not famous might also want to think about writing a futurography, since the ones we are most interested in are often the ones who we expect to make it big, those who are on the verge but has yet to experience his or her breakthrough (the beloved “expectities”). If you have a good idea or a reason to describe your future success, you might even be able to generate such high interest that someone is willing to sponsor you. Note that I’m not talking about a loose plan, I’m talking about what you will actually do. Because in this world of any, it should be possible to pre-determine that, right? If you are able to write the story with a beginning and an end, like most biographies are built up today, it’s probably more convincing. Remember though, not to reveal an ending that is too clear. People want to be able to create their own. For that reason, it might be a better idea to release your futurography in several volumes, so that the general interest increases for each episode of your future life. Or perhaps you should learn from the movie business and release a trilogy, maybe even in the form of “yesterday, today and tomorrow”.

We’ve learned earlier on this blog that everyone will enjoy their 15 microseconds of fame and what young people want more than any other thing in life is fame (even more than intelligence, physical skills and power). Thinking in terms of futurographies, you could start a ”future-blog” and create fame for your achievements, long before you’ve actually done anything. You often hear about the importance of reinventing yourself in order to stay interesting, but I say pre-invent yourself!

It doesn’t have to do with fame, though. You could write a future diary that is as secret as most people’s normal diaries are today. The point is if you write it down, it’s more likely that you have thought it through and really expect the things in your future diary to actually happen. And if you do (expect it), they will. Why? Because expectations predict actual behavior. Expectations are self-fulfilling, so write it as convincingly as you can and then just use your expectations as fuel for your own success. And if you ever feel lost, all you have to do is go back to the future. Also, try to stay positive (MD states that the more positive expectations you have, the more you will try to make sure it really happens), and allow yourself to aim for the sky. Bon Scott, late singer of AC/DC, said (sang) it very cleverly early on in his career: “I’m gonna be a rock ‘n’ roll star, yes I are!”. Oh, remember to keep it short (much unlike my posts), or else you won’t want to read it when it’s done and neither will any other minisode-junkie.

What do you think, could futurographies be lucrative, or is it too abstract? Could it be done in a way that makes it more reliable or more interesting for readers, or is it perhaps too risky – what if people think my future is extremely boring? Will I be doomed or is it a risk worth taking?

We should know by now that what lies ahead and what will be, should be more interesting than what has been or even what is. We’re living in a ”pre-world”, where sneak-previews, pre-launches, pre-analyses etc. create and fuel expectations, which makes us want what’s coming even more. However, there is no denying that the world we live in is at the same time becoming more and more of a ”re-world”. You can bet your house on that anything good (or remotely good) will somehow, somewhere turn up again in a new shape or form and we will re-live and re-experience what once was. Of course the re-world has some very positive sides, e.g. the development of more recyclable materials and a general positive attitude towards recycling. The question is if everything that is possible to recycle today should be.

For example, the movie industry has experienced an explosion in recycling projects in the shape of re-makes. An old classic can easily be updated with better special effects and perhaps a few actors that are more interesting to today’s movie audience. And why not? The script has been written and the movie has already been made. It’s just that it can be done even better…and more money can be made. And think about all the money that is made through re-releases made possible thanks to technological development – first you bought E.T. on VHS, then DVD (perhaps even laser disc before that), then came the version for your portable Playstation or your iPod, then came blu-ray DVD, then came the revamped version of E.T. with new special effects incorporated, and on it goes. It’s pretty much the same pattern in the world of video games, where old concepts are re-launched for new platforms.

We are also witnessing different kinds of recycling in the music business. Reunions, for instance, are very common (farewell tours could be a reason in itself to take a break and build expectations only to get back together and go on a world tour) and there are few classic albums that haven’t been remastered and re-released. Interestingly enough, some artists go beyond remastering their albums. They even re-record them, much like a remake in the world of movies. Twisted Sister for instance had a huge hit in the 80s with the album ”Stay Hungry” and to celebrate its 20th anniversary they re-recorded the whole thing ”the way it should have sounded” (the result was called ”Still Hungry”). Metallica have often been accused of mixing the bass too low on one of their albums, “…And Justice for All”, and it has recently been debated if it was done intentionally. Obviously, some members of the band think it would be a great idea to re-mix it, turn the bass up and re-release this classic. Maybe Metallica was ahead of their time? The Beatles took it even one step further. Instead of releasing a version similar to the original, the album “Let It Be” was re-released as ”Let It Be…Naked”, a scaled-down version of the original album, with less strings and wind instruments. A different record altogether. This made fans all over the world ask themselves ”what could they possibly do to ‘Sgt. Pepper’ or ‘Abbey Road’?”. Expectations are of course extremely high. Moreover, there are examples of artists recording “the same” album in two different languages, and Christina Aguilera is currently learning how to sing with a futuristic and robotic voice (whatever that means), in order to release an album consisting of some interesting covers of (oh yes, you guessed it) HER OWN SONGS!

Recycling in entertainment is obviously very common, but brands and products in all sorts of categories are often re-launched, revamped or revitalized, sometimes because it’s necessary due to e.g. a decline in market share and loss of relevance, sometimes because it’s easy – equity is already built up, it’s a lot cheaper than to establish a new brand etc. And perhaps “re-ing” could be utilized as an intentional strategy in a wider sense. For instance, could bands record albums with great songs, but intentionally mix it poorly only to re-master them and re-release them? And could moviemakers write great scripts but do mediocre castings, only to create a superior version later on? Or could different brands save some of the best for later or even build in intentional flaws and become better at capitalizing on re-ing?

I think the re-world is interesting, but puzzling. We’re always after the next thing in life and we wonder what tomorrow has in store for us, and still the next thing is actually quite often the last thing (and tomorrow has yesterday in store). In any case, we seem to be very fascinated with all the re-releases, re-makes, re-launches etc., even though we often claim that “the original was better”. Why is that? And what do you think needs to be re-:d that hasn’t been already?

[Tomorrow: something completely different.]

”Everything must come to an end” is a popular expression and it makes sense. At least it has up until now, but you shouldn’t be too sure of it. In this nextopian world, anything could happen.

I was going to write today’s post about immortality and how the average age of death is increasing in all parts of the world (except for Sub-Saharan Africa). We develop more sophisticated cures for difficult diseases and you can transplant almost anything today – hearts, tissue, livers and, at least in theory, heads (according to Wikipedia, a head transplant is still, as of 2008, a hypothetical surgical operation, at least on human beings. However, some claim it’s fully possible to perform such an operation). Plus, and most importantly, expectations is what keeps us going (keeps us alive even) and since we now live in the world where anything is possible and we always expect something even better for tomorrow, we should be able to live much longer than the average human being does today. With a few spare parts, you might be able to become as old (or young rather) as you like. Of course this is still very theoretical, which is fine, but I’m going to focus on immortality in another sense in this post.

Yesterday, I stated that bands and artists can benefit from bidding adieu due to a number of reasons. Well, this might be true today, but don’t be too sure about tomorrow. Tomorrow, bands and artists might not even have to go on farewell tours, either because the band members or the artists are to keen on writing new exciting songs and keep on churning out great music well beyond the age of whatever (with or without surgical support), or because they have found a completely different way of staying alive. Some bands seem to have identified a new way to secure immortality – a new immortality model if you will. One is my favourite band KISS.

Since the beginning of the seventies, KISS have toured the world and produced incredible music (even though they’re getting less and less novel material out there). What is interesting is that KISS have changed band members a lot since the start. They have always been four people in the band at the same time, but only two of them, Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley, have been with the band the whole time. All in all, there have been ten different members of this band (not including so-called ghost musicians on a couple of albums). Maybe that’s not unique, but since KISS is very much built around the characters they have created – personas built on specific make-up designs, costumes and histories, almost like cartoon characters – they (Gene and Paul) claim that the band as a concept is way bigger than its individual members. Thus swapping people isn’t that big a deal really. In recent interviews, both Gene and Paul have claimed that the band could go on long after both of these two original members have left the band (and the earth). Some fans think this is absolutely ludicrous, but it is an interesting thought at least. Could KISS be around a hundred years from now? Remember that Manchester United does not consist of the same team members today as it did in 1878.

Maybe it’s not the same and maybe you shouldn’t compare bands and soccer teams. But what is interesting is that you might be able to get the next best (?) thing: Gene’s son, Nicholas Simmons, recently recorded with former KISS member Bruce Kulick. Perhaps Nicholas could replace Gene in KISS? There are other similar examples: On their latest tour, Van Halen’s original bass player, Michael Anthony, was replaced by Eddie Van Halen’s (lead guitarist and founder of the band) son. Furthermore, Led Zeppelin did a one-off gig in London last year with none other than late drummer John Bonham’s son on the drums (and rumour has it that they are planning on touring the world together in 2009). Also, it seems Madonna’s daughter, Lourdes, is getting more and more attention in the tabloids and she might even be able to replace her mother as the new Madonna.

There are many examples of daughters and sons taking over their parents’ businesses, and now we see it happen in the music industry. Many have claimed that rock ’n’ roll is dead, often rock stars themselves, but maybe it doesn’t have to die. Ever. Maybe more bands should act like brands (much like KISS) in order to secure eternal success. Or is the ”soul” of a band more important than the ”soul” of a soccer team or a company? And is that the reason why it feels better (at least I think so) when it is a son or daughter taking over, which should mean that some of that ”soul” is carried on? Perhaps the best survival model of all is to let the fans in. It’s been discussed before, the generation-in-charge that wants to be an integral part of the hype and control their darlings.

It’s been possible to change actors playing James Bond every now and then, many different people have drawn Donald Duck for Disney, famous TV-shows can bring new hostesses and hosts in etc. It should, at least in theory, be possible to prolong the existence of a band beyond the lives of their founding members. But is it possible in practice? Or will we be completely uninterested in long-lasting bands in the future – in the age of MySpace, we can discover several new and interesting bands and artists in just a couple of clicks, so why waste time on the same band for a longer period of time?

Throughout the course of this blog, we’ve learned that you are never better than your next thing. Your next thing is what keeps you going, and keeps people’s interest in you going. Or is it? Could there be reasons to make a full stop?

Two weeks ago, Swedish rock band The Hellacopters said their goodbyes to fans from all over the world. Four farewell concerts were held in Stockholm and reviews were overwhelming. Not too surprising. It seems like whenever something good is coming to an end, it becomes even more interesting. The same thing holds for people passing away. Take Kurt Cobain and Nirvana for instance. Their popularity exploded when Kurt decided to take his life (yes, the band was big before his demise, but not even close to what happened as soon as he put a shotgun to his face and pulled the trigger). There are countless examples of painters, writers, bands etc. who didn’t become popular until it was too late for them to experience their own fame.

Why is that? Is it because we expect that if they hadn’t died or stopped playing, writing, painting etc. they would have continued to make great things, which leaves us to our imagination and fantasies about how brilliant it would be? Expectations that we know can never come to life so to speak, which makes it possible for us to dream up different scenarios and create our own endings? For instance, what if The Beatles would have released another record? In my opinion, as well as many other Beatles fans, they became better and better and more and more interesting with each album. But now, we will never know what their ”next” album would have sounded like, but I would expect that it would be absolutely incredible.

It may be even more valuable to us when favorite bands break up or when great artists die than if these people would actually keep their bands together or make sure to stay alive. For example, bands and artists like KISS, The Rolling Stones and Ozzy Osbourne have all had their farewell tours, but somehow decided not to call it quits. Stones have done it more than once. Many fans feel cheated and express their disappointment in different ways (e.g. on blogs and forums). My guess would be that it is the same effect that occurs when products are launched as limited edition versions or when something is on sale for a limited period of time. Whenever there’s a limited edition object, we want it more because we know most other people won’t be able to enjoy it, which is not the case with most products in our world of any. Thus, if a band or artist announces a farewell tour, we know it’s now or never. And if it turns out it isn’t, we won’t be too happy. It might appear a bit strange, because perhaps you would think that fans should be happy about their favorite bands sticking together and keep on going. But it’s not the same. They cheated you on the fantastic farewell that would have left you with being one of the few who witnessed their last glory hours. Plus, you might rather fantasize about what could have been.

But what about the example of artists dying? It’s rarely announced beforehand, still popularity has a tendency to explode ”when the fat lady has sung”. (I’ve also heard from tattooists that it is much more common for people to get a portrait-tattoo of a family member or a friend as a tribute when that family member or friend is gone, than to get it while they’re still alive). Well, for one thing you can be pretty sure there will be loads of DVD-releases, CD box sets with unreleased material, interesting documentaries, tribute albums and tribute concerts etc. etc., which likely is often more interesting than what you would ever get from a living, breathing artist that has been going for quite some time. Or maybe it’s just like Joni Mitchell once sang: ”you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.” And maybe you don’t really want to know what it would be like if it wasn’t. Gone, that is. Or is it just the basic human function that what is out of our reach is more tempting (nothing can be more out of reach than someone who isn’t alive)?

Saying goodbye seems to have its advantages in the music business, but shouldn’t brands and companies in other industries be able to implement the farewell-strategy as successfully? Or would it be a certain death for that brand or company?

I feel very humble and grateful that this blog has been graced with a lot of very smart, insightful and eloquent participants. Many times, I find that their comments on my posts are more interesting than the actual posts. And I wish they would receive the same attention.

It is really exciting that nextopia has become somewhat of a (both cultural and business) phenomenon this fall – a phenomenon that deserves to be described and advanced not only from my singular perspective.  Therefore, next week will be great!

 Next week, I have invited Lars Friberg as a nextopia guest blogger. Lars Friberg holds a Planner position at DDB Stockholm, and has done a lot of really exciting, award-winning stuff there. Throughout the nextopia blog’s history, he has written a number of lengthy and eloquent comments containing razor-sharp insights. And throughout next week, I know Lars Friberg will rock this world and shake nextopia with his clever posts!

In January next year, Scottish indie band Franz Ferdinand will release their new album. However, realizing that we are 2920 times more impatient now than in the old millennium, they make their music available right now. With a Generation-In-Charge twist: As of this Monday, two of the instrument parts from the song “Ulysses” are available on beatport.com for anybody to mix and produce their own “Ulysses” track.

This resembles their fellow UK indie band Radiohead’s invitation to remix their single “Nude” this spring (go back to the previous post on the Control-your-darlings-list and refresh your memory), with two add-ons testifying to the progress of the Expectations society:

One, anyone gets the chance to produce a “Ulysses” song before the real version is even out – meaning that the real version may not even be the real version (was that too philosophical?).

Two, realizing that the perceived value of the song is greater before the release (remember how people’s willingness to pay for Radiohead’s latest album dropped from 8 to 5 dollars the very instant it was released), for 3.99 dollars, anyone can purchase the “premium bundle” of instrument parts in addition to the two free ones, to make an even more sophisticated own version of the song. 

The music part downloads are available until November 18th, and anyone, anywhere can listen to all the uploaded “Ulysesses” versions on beatportal.com from November 25th. After the voting closes on December 9th, (at least) one winning version will be put on the band’s album for release in January.

I guess you know by now that Virgin Atlantic’s planes have cockroaches crawling on the floors, white trash “chavs” passengers filling up their seats, and monstrous delays caused by the engine repairs that are needed every 15 minutes.

You know this, probably not because you’ve been in one of those planes, but because of the 13 Gatwick, UK, based Virgin employees that earned their 15 microseconds of fame this week due to their not so virginal remarks in an ongoing facebook discussion.

In the world of any, anyone, anywhere, can take part of a private discussion anytime. Yet another case of blogarazzi-bummer, before long Virgin Atlantic HQ became aware of the “Gatwick 13’s” private discussion, placing them in the same unemployment pool as the black lingerie posing mayor, the Burger King kitchen sink bathing employee and the rest of the people that have paraded on this blog in the past.

And yet another case of 15-microseconds-of-famers, the entire world knew about them in an instant.

Superstition may be right – at the same time as the “Gatwick 13” basked in their 15 microseconds of fame, a British Airways employee produced a facebook group about 13 things he hates about the airline’s passengers. The company just found out – raise your hand if you think he will be relieved from his job before this week is over…

In 24 hours’ time (unless we get a rerun of the 2004 election), the US will officially have a winning presidential candidate. 

Unofficially, the results are already in. According to more than 100,000 google hits, Obama will win by a landslide – 59-41. Says 7Eleven. Or rather, all the Americans that have bought either a cup o’ bama or a mccain mug for their coffee during the fall.

In the world of any, there’s a 7Eleven on any street corner you pass, and anyone, anywhere, can vote for their favorite president anytime they buy coffee.

The “7Election” predicted the votes correctly in both previous new millennium elections, and, hence, it now has an important influence on the expectations on the final votes within the next few hours.

But more important than the final summation of cup votes, as people have bought cup o’ bamas and mccain mugs every day during the fall, the “7Election” has been able to count cups and influence expectations on a day-by-day basis, influencing the candidates’ rhetorics week after week – and elevating Obama to super expectity stardom. The “7Election” has kept Obama in the public eye and raised expectations on him mug by mug on street corner by street corner.

The “7Election” is a perfect illustration of our 2920 new millennium impatience (if you forgot, go back to the post a few pages back that shows that we are 2920 times more impatient now than in the old millennium) – who wants to settle for 1 single vote at the end of the fall, when you can vote any number of (thousands of) times from late summer?

If you dare not trust the “7Election” final predictions, icecream company Baskin Robbins launched their own Obama “Whirl of Change” vs. McCain “Straight Talk Crunch” taste election a while back. The score yesterday – Obama 51/McCain 49.

My guess is, you have no idea who Samuel Wurzelbacher is. For the average Joe, his 13,500 google hits ain’t too shabby. But those 13,500 are dwarfed by “Joe the Plumber’s” more than 3 million hits.

Those 3 million “Joe the Plumber” hits generated after Samuel Wurzelbacher’s encounter with Barack Obama on the nextopia president’s campaign stop in Ohio three weeks ago, where, on his way back from a football game with his son, Sammy ran into the ABC network’s cameras, got a microphone stuck under his chin, “what does the average Joe want to ask Obama?” Sammy produced two (obviously) surprisingly articulate questions about Obama’s tax plans, and BAM! he became “Joe the Plumber” with the entire world.

During the presidential debate between Obama and John McCain four days later, “Joe the Plumber” received 25 mentions. In comparison, the Iraqi war was mentioned six times…

During his 15 microseconds of fame, Sammy has been in virtually all American newscasts and talk shows, and has made headlines from Boston to Beijing to Bombay. Realizing that his 15 microseconds will soon be over, he has contracted his own publicity management, which is now negotiating deals for a movie and has already started marketing and hyping a country music record he will release in January – realizing that we live in the Expectations Society.

If the record wouldn’t make it, maybe they could strike a deal with Vanessa Paradis to make a remake on the old monster hit “Joe le Taxi”: