Advertisement

John Law was right...

topic posted Wed, June 27, 2007 - 9:55 AM by  Jeffrey
Share/Save/Bookmark

mag1.olivesoftware.com/Active...4r5.asp

Page 68.

Ah ha ha ha ha...
posted by:
Jeffrey
SF Bay Area
Advertisement
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: John Law was right...

    Wed, June 27, 2007 - 11:15 AM
    Wow!
    Is that a green bomb or a $$$$ bomb?
    Either way , sure unexpected!!??
    Quite interesting in any case and quite a gamble on the future of the event.
    Is it just another evolutionary twist and will not be a major component or will it be overwhelming?
    Personally , I have enough confidence in the LLC to think that this will be a positive move at least for the perception of the event from outsiders (PR) and may be eductional to attendees at the same time.
    A little different spin on art to offset what we really attend for... Fire and blowing shit up!
    ~Wendell~
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: John Law was right...

      Wed, June 27, 2007 - 12:27 PM
      I have to say if I at all feel "sold" on anything at the event, or if there is anyone anywhere pushing a product even in the most friendly man check this shit out kinda way I will discontinue my annual pilgrimage.

      This si a turn for the worst and a poor poor decision, I need more grassroots in my life, not more LLC's or corps in my life.
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Wed, June 27, 2007 - 12:45 PM
        Hmmmm...maybe we should all bring our businesses to the event, but pretend we are not trying to sell anything. That sounds really fun!
        • Re: John Law was right...

          Wed, June 27, 2007 - 12:51 PM
          Well, Any business trying to sell me something on the playa is going on my List of Things and Services I won't be Buying.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: John Law was right...

            Wed, June 27, 2007 - 12:59 PM
            If I feel sold this year, since I am already commited to going, I will simply create a protest of the "green pavilion"

            With signs like

            "Warning you are now entering a non commercial free enviroment"
            "prepare to be assimilated"
            "we are REALLY not trying to sell you anything"
          • Re: John Law was right...

            Wed, June 27, 2007 - 2:10 PM
            I'm wondering how these companies will feel when folks start to climb on their equipment ?
            And more that one thing has burned down before it's time out there........

            Might "Spark" a few protesting gestures from some folks.....

            Then again, maybe it's an attempt to but a little Burner in the corporate culture ??
            As Ben Cohen said, (Ben and Jerry's), if you want to change the world right now, you have to change the corporation.

            I think wearing my "This space for rent" shirt might be fun when visiting the "Product Pavilion".
            • fre
              fre
              offline 3

              Re: John Law was right...

              Sun, July 1, 2007 - 11:17 PM
              I made a shirt a few years ago that says "YOUR AD HERE" because I got tired of seeing shirts with logos on them. I find it amazing that people will pay for a company's advertising, when the same company would pay to rent a billboard.
        • Re: John Law was right...

          Sat, June 30, 2007 - 7:23 PM
          <Hmmmm...maybe we should all bring our businesses to the event, but pretend we are not trying to sell anything. That sounds really fun! >

          On the other hand, how well do computers, solar cells, and pamphlets burn?
  • Re: John Law was right...

    Wed, June 27, 2007 - 12:45 PM
    I for one am still in shock. To say I feel betrayed would be more accurate. The one thing that's drilled into your head from day one is that there is no branding, no marketing, no commercialism, no money at Burning Man. The image of the Man with a suit on is in poor taste, in my opinion. I can't believe the writer (rightly so) describes us as a "tangible business asset." I guess I have until now, refused to admit that the CEO of Burning Man would ever think of me as just a consumer worth only $250. I attend Burning Man for the people, the creativity and the fact that the life on the playa, for me, is far divorced from my daily routine. When I'm there, I feel like I am part of something big. The people I meet and the enthusiasm I throw into the event is what brings me back year after year. But to hear that my efforts, opinions, and education simply makes me a member of some marketing department's dream demographic is disappointing. This new development saddens me.
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Thu, June 28, 2007 - 9:59 AM
      Check out page 16 also.

      The Value Proposition: 40,000 of the smartest, most socially networked content-generating people on the planet, whose tolerance for B.S. is negative point-five, all checking out your product.
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Thu, June 28, 2007 - 6:42 PM
      well, ive been following this article, and there has been response from the staff at burning man hq. a couple said they did not agree with the layout or chosen quotations, they create the wrong feel without the whole story. but overall the point of trying this is honest. there are some amazing technologies out there, and burners are making a lot of it, but there are resources that we dont have that corporations do. i am a generally anti corporation gal, but this isnt being done to benefit the corps. its done to show participants how much is really out there now, and what is being worked on for the future. burning man has long had tons of silicone valley, ceo, inventors and business people very involved just like the rest of us, and now its there turn to show us what they can do. the organizers are definitely going for worlds fair feel this year. and as far as ive heard there will be nothing to buy or sell by any of the companies. but if people cant start to see and understand that there is technology being created that can make humans more environmentally friendly, then how can we ever expect the general population to accept them. burning man is what we make, and if we take what the corps show us and learn how to incorporate it (no pun intended) into our art and lives, then we can seriously start something cool.
      • BM HQ- why are you doing this? why are you really doing this? to show us what new techmologies are available? really? why do you need to do that when we can go online and check them out for ourselves? Is it for our own good? I bet you are getting something out of it.... hmmm, what could it be? ....from a small voice in the back : cough, "money"

        Hey, BM HQ, stop trying to "spin" this story. we don't need to go to Burning Man to find out what new technologies are out there for us to buy or invest in. We can do that any time we want by logging on. What we need to find at burning man is the culture that thrives on the absence of consumerism and the absence of the corporations that think that a person is worth the amount of spending dollars he/she has. Corporations are looking at coming to BM for one reason- finding their customers. Sure, there are a lot of great corps in the world doing a lot of great things, but we want to get away from all of them. good and bad, for a moment (or just one week). Can't we just have ONe place in this world, for one week, where corporations are not spewing their load at me covertly and overtly? If they are at BM than no amount of covering up their logos or their intentions will change the fact that they are there. I am INSULTED that BM, LLC believes that covering up the logos and disguising the businesses as burners will trick me into submission. How are they behaving any different than any other large company? the most evil of companies use such tactics to cover up their misdeeds.

        BM is being run by a woman who has worked for the department of defense and other major major profit-generating corporations. She has been bringing the event up to speed with her idealogy, "more profit, more money, more revenue, more..." and just when we thought we were escaping from it all, the wool was pulled from our eyes and we discovered that there is no longer anywhere to run from corporate america because money corrupts.

        Hmmm, how can we stop this?
        • I have spent a lot of time at BMHQ and the LLC and the staff care. They care about the event, they care about the world, they care about making a difference, they care about what you think.

          I am always stunned by the level of cynicism I read on this Tribe. None of these people are driving a new car of live in a huge home. I understand that by the nature of being Burners we question things, but we need global warming to stop, we all need to do better at greening our lives., sounds like a way to do that is at hand.

          My 2 cents.....
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Sat, June 30, 2007 - 7:27 PM
        <i am a generally anti corporation gal, but this isnt being done to benefit the corps. its done to show participants how much is really out there now>

        Oh....a bunch of corporations are dragging their toys into the middle of the desert during the hottest month of the year just for grins, eh? They don't seek to profit from it? I don't know what drug you're on but I don't think I want any. This much osrichism is dangerous to the soul.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: John Law was right...

    Wed, June 27, 2007 - 1:12 PM
    As long as it's not " In Your Face" maybe it'll be a fun thing?
    Will the displays be set up like interactive art installations or booths with loud guys yelling " Get ya home biodiesel plant folks, step right up"?
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Wed, June 27, 2007 - 1:38 PM
      Burning Man will be previewing it's new desert Ebcot center/trade show. This blows me away. I wish today was the first of April.

      I don't think it will hurt the event--it's just going to alienate the people that liked the original event. But from a marketing angle, it's just like changing the formula to coke. No, wait, that didn't work very well, did it?
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Wed, June 27, 2007 - 1:42 PM
      The article states "...no marketing whatsoever will be allowed at the event. Clean-tech companies can exhibit their technologies, but their products can't display a logo. No marketing materials will be allowed. Company reps can't even demonstrate their wares in the pavilion; they have to turn them over to Burning Man, which will demonstrate the technologies in whatever artistic form it chooses."

      But, yeah, like Linty says- stay home. It won't be any fun.
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Wed, June 27, 2007 - 2:07 PM
        I think people will have fun, but it will be a different kind of fun. It will still be a party and our friends will be there, now they just will have trader joe's and walmart between theme camps.
        • Re: John Law was right...

          Wed, June 27, 2007 - 2:25 PM
          Totally. Even if it gets more of a 'trade show' vibe, or 'county faire' vibe, it will still be fun.

          A good example of this is the Maker's Faire, if you will. Some folks pay to get in. Some folks get in for free to show off their stuff (like we did). Some folks get paid to be there. Larger companies are allowed, but they pay (a lot) to be there to show off their stuff or to just be 'sponsors'. It's fun, it works, it's not terribly exploitative and it still makes for a overall non-commercial, positive experience of folks doing cool stuff.

          But the beer cost $10 for a Tecante tall boy, and it's in an events center in San Mateo.

          But then again Maker Faire isn't snowin' people over with some bogus "it's all about the love, man" line to get people to do stuff for them, while also reaping in the profits from the show. It's obviously a business. And no one has ever asked me to drink any Kool-aid to be part of the Maker Faire. But whatever.

          What I'm really wondering about is:

          1. What happens when BRC, LLC fails to properly deliver their 'demographic' to their corporate masters? That's real money, legal fees, lost profits, etc, when the crowd changes, the demographic changes, or the message falls flat, or the ads don't pay off, and maybe even some folks don't go because of this sort of stuff... part of me thinks this wasn't well thought out by some folks.

          2. What happens when there is a huge rainstorm, say, on Thursday or Friday, right when things are really rollin', and now all of a sudden 30,000 people are stuck in the mud, along with said corporate master's expensive stuff, and instead of a event, you've got a humanitarian crisis in full effect. I can see the Corporations loving being at all associated with that scenario...

          (I have no dog in this fight, BTW. I don't care what BRC, LLC does or if they make money or sell out. I just think that this just proves the point that it's a business, and not a 'social movement' after all...)
          • Re: John Law was right...

            Thu, June 28, 2007 - 6:52 PM
            but the corporations dont have any hold on the LLC or the org, they are just participating. its not going to change the event itself. i mean how different was 04 with a space station under that man from 05 with a funhouse? did it change the way people acted towards each other? did it stop the drinks from flowing, or the candykids from dancing, or the art from being breathtaking? this "green man" theme will hopefully have more tangible impact on society than "vault of heaven" or "psyche" because of just experiencing (which is my favorite pasttime i may add), we will be learning. the party is not going to stop, but this time we will have something more to take with us when we get home.
            • Re: John Law was right...

              Thu, June 28, 2007 - 11:53 PM
              Black Rock City LLC is a corporation. Everyone in the US with anything (asset) to protect shields it by forming a corporate entity that takes on the brunt of liability in case of emergency. Most mom and pop stores, coffee shops, Michael Moore's production company, etc. have a corporate entity.

              "Corporations" are not in and of themselves evil. Evil people with evil purposes do evil things. Hitler was not a corporation, but had Germany won World War II (militarily . .. don't get me started on long run economics) we'd have to pay extra to wear one of those landing strip mustaches. Branding, non-corporate, still evil.

              Sure Hitler was not a corporation he was big central government. OK, I concede that an overly powerful central government is a bad thing QED.

              (I considered not posting this, but I'm just participating. Nothing personal [Hippies])
            • Re: John Law was right...

              Fri, June 29, 2007 - 12:07 AM
              That's not my point at all. It's not about how people will act towards one another, it's how participating corporations will act towards BRC, LLC.

              I wrote that bit prior to the clarification from A.G. that the 'presenters' aren't paying anything to be there. The Biz 2.0 article made it sound very much like a trade show deal, where presenters typically do pay, and some pay a lot, to be there.

              If it was the case that they were paying to be there, and I mean paying BRC, LLC a chunk of change to be there, well then that brings in all kinds of legal issues if BRC, LLC doesn't deliver the show or the people. That's what I was getting at.

              Seeing that they aren't paying, other than to attend like everyone else, then it's all moot. But there there isn't any way we can know who's paying what, for BRC, LLC is a business, and as such they don't have to share details with us.

              I actually agree with you, to be honest. The whole 'Burning Man' thing will be something with or without the LLC. What I'm talking about here is very, very separate I feel from the actual experience and people of the thing. I'm talking about the Business of the thing, i.e. the LLC...
          • Re: John Law was right...

            Sat, June 30, 2007 - 7:31 PM
            <1. What happens when BRC, LLC fails to properly deliver their 'demographic' to their corporate masters? That's real money, legal fees, lost profits, etc,>

            I'm wondering on what date all this hucksterism came into being. Was it after a sufficient number of advance tickets were sold that they didn't have to worry about covering their nut? In that case, isn't this false and misleaing marketing? I think a lot of people will be properly miffed that they've already paid for an event that will be substantially different than what they were told it would be.
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Wed, June 27, 2007 - 2:16 PM
        Actually, shooter, it worked just fine. They made new coke, it sucked, people complained...they made it slightly better(but still way cheaper than before) and just called it coke again.

        If I were king, Burningman would have Lockheed as a sponsor...when people complain I'd pass a rule that says that BM won't support bomb makers....then everyone will be so impressed how we only support ethical companies.

        Are they gonna ghetto the companies in one area? Will people have a choice not to receive their free pens, bottled water and mouse pad giveaways? It is a giving culture, ya know.

        Is it true that there's gonna be cell phone service sooner or later? I bet that will change Burning Man Waaaaaayyyy more than sponsorship will. Naked & Texting....woow!

        It's a small world, after all.
        • Re: John Law was right...

          Wed, June 27, 2007 - 2:19 PM
          Actually, I don't think it will be that bad. Sooner or later you have to trust the intelligence of the community. I know that sounds funny, but if you can't than what is the point in doing anything ever?
        • Re: John Law was right...

          Wed, June 27, 2007 - 2:21 PM
          Wow. The desperate faith people cling to when it comes to BM is monumental. It's not the LLC that makes the event, but the people. I think it's time to graduate, or atleast be a little realistic when it comes to the idea of BM.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: John Law was right...

            Wed, June 27, 2007 - 2:49 PM
            "Decommodification
            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. We resist the substitution of consumption for participatory experience."

            WE RESIST THE SUBSTITUTION OF CONSUMPTION FOR PARTICIPATORY EXPERIENCE.... So the message is that rather than DIY reliance we should indeed just lift our credit cards to the almighty corporation and consume our way to being green. I guess all I am trying to say here is that consumerisim and being green can not go hand in hand, we CAN NOT buy our way to a greener planet. The LLC is in my mind leaving an negative and unintended (and very un-green) message to the world.
            • Re: John Law was right...

              Wed, June 27, 2007 - 6:37 PM
              Still Waters says, "we CAN NOT buy our way to a greener planet."

              Of course you can! You can buy an LED bulb instead of an incandesent one. If everyone did this we'd reduce our energy use by 5% or more. You can buy a EnergyStar appliance instead of a normal one and increase efficiency by 10% or more. New boilers can be bought that have efficiencies of >85% whereas old ones are about 60%. You can buy solar and replace fossil fuels. There are plenty of things that can be bought to replace what we have (and is needed) and you will probably see many of these things out on the playa
              • Re: John Law was right...

                Wed, June 27, 2007 - 6:50 PM
                let me restate that, you probably won't see the products I mention but inventions and products that can reduce an individuals contribution to green house gases and the like
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: John Law was right...

                  Wed, June 27, 2007 - 8:49 PM
                  I completly agree.... to a point.

                  What is being sold to america is another reason to throw out your current whatever and replace it with a "green" whatever. That is what I mean by you can not buy your way to a greener planet.

                  Do you have any idea how many things I see on craigslist every day perfect functioning items that have been traded in on a new fancy green product. I mean people seem to have this concept that they are doing something great by selling there 2006 BMW for a 2007 hybrid. Or giving up there perfect stove that was put into their brand new house to get the *more* energy compliant one. Yes in the long run it helps, years down the road, but we should be teaching the concept of not buying something new until you absolutely must. I mean should I trade in my 30+ mile to the gallon miata for a 50+ mpg hybrid when my miata works just fine, runs just fine and has at least 15 years of quality service in it? Toyota would have me believe I was doing the right thing by doing that!
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: John Law was right...

                    Wed, June 27, 2007 - 9:14 PM
                    It depends.... on best use.

                    I drove a car. I had the ability to get a prius. Instead of trading my car in, I sold it for one dollar to a guy who was driving a 9 mile to the gallon gas guzzling muscle car from the 70s. I calculated that by doing this I won twice. Best scenario.

                    Hmmm I smell a new thread
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: John Law was right...

                    Wed, June 27, 2007 - 11:14 PM
                    or going to a green festival to talk about alternative energy that's located many many hours drive away and requires tons and tons of energy and disposable goods to survive while attending because nothings there except for all the crap we bring along...

                    oh wait...
                    • Re: John Law was right...

                      Fri, June 29, 2007 - 9:09 AM
                      I keep hearing this line of reasoning, and it just occurred to me what's wrong with it: it's a guilt trip. You can take anything to a ridiculous extreme, including our presence on the planet and use of resources. By this line of reasoning, the only way we can really "save the earth" is to kill ourselves (and, as the more radical version goes, take 50 or a hundred with us).

                      besides the fact that this is ecologically naive, (all organisms use resources), I think that most people can agree that they didn't ask to be here, but now that we're here, it's kind of nice, but we definitely have to take a hard look at how MUCH resource we use. And I think that most of us who are interested in the "Green Man" theme this year can agree on that.

                      But here's the fallacy about the line of reasoning about "going to a green festival to talk about alternative energy that.... requires tons and tons of energy and disposable goods to survive because nothing's there except for all the crap we bring.":

                      We're going any way.

                      For the community, art, party, opportunity to live an alternate reality for a week. What many people call "VACATION."

                      So, if you're on vacation and you learn and talk about ways to do both vacation AND "real life" in a less environmentally obnoxious way, and perhaps you are even inspired to be less environmentally obnoxious yourself as you prepare for your vacation, that seems like a benefit to me.
                      • Hey, I got in with Safari!

                        Fri, June 29, 2007 - 9:31 AM
                        T, I do indeed work for the LLC. The MEMBERS of the LLC are the six business owners/board members who participate in that LLC as "members" and I guess I thought that's what you meant. I attend board meetings in a sort of "consulting" fashion, but I am not a member of the board. I hope that clarifies why I made the distinction.

                        And I hear a lot of viewpoints in here I can totally respect, I really do. I think that it would be scary as hell if nobody was skeptical of this idea and the fact that we are means we'll be vigilant together about making sure this happens on OUR terms, not the outside world's. There are so many companies who took one look at this and said "No way, man," because we weren't giving them any wiggle room to do anything, because in essence we're saying, "Hey, we wanna borrow your cool toys, play with them in the desert and turn them into art, and oh, by the way, you get nothing out of the deal except maybe the experience of being there with us while we play with them..."

                        And all the stuff in that article aside, the reality, if you wanna use their language, is that it doesn't really make a lot of "advertising" sense to think you're going to get any new "customers" for your product by having your stuff sitting in a crowd of a few thousand people (who HATE being advertised to and are gonna be revolted as soon as you try) without any marks or logos on it and no way to hand out business cards or flyers (all of which expressly laid out in the contract they're going to sign) about it. The only part of it that makes sense is if you're an innovator who says, "Yeah, it would be good if creative people saw the possibilities of someting like this thing I invented that converts household waste into fertilizer (or whatever), and I won't actually sell a single thing, but it might inspire people to know what's possible, and I care about that."

                        Some of these folks do what they do out of right livelihood, not out of a chase for the almighty dollar, I think. Some have wandered off disinterested, shaking their heads that anyone would suggest they do this even though basically they get "nothing" (financially speaking) out of the deal; a few, though, have decided to give it a whirl because they have an inkling that there is a special synergy in BRC that's got nothing to do with marketing dollars, demographics, or anything else...I believe those are the ones that have decided to do this even though it doesn't make a lot of "business sense" when you put it on paper.


                      • Re: John Law was right...

                        Mon, July 2, 2007 - 7:57 PM
                        "By this line of reasoning, the only way we can really "save the earth" is to kill ourselves (and, as the more radical version goes, take 50 or a hundred with us). "

                        Wow way to take a joke.

                        The reason I get snarky about this year's theme is that I am a design professional, two tests away from my Architect's license, and have in the past worked for some of the 'greenest' firms in the Bay Area. Now I run my own design firm that makes heavy use of sustainable, water-based, and/or recycled materials and tries to make everything really really efficient and earth-friendly and such.

                        So it's something I take pretty seriously, and have for years.

                        So now y'all come along, and suddenly have 'found' a green theme for your 'vacation' this year. Great. OK. Some folks might learn some stuff. Great.

                        But still man, you can't take this so seriously.

                        When a died-in-the-wool 'burner' was talking about how important this year's theme was, and how much they were into it, to me once, well, I simply didn't have the heart to ask any real questions. Like how they felt about LEEDs, and it's problems. Or about Greenwashing. Or about any other 'real' topic concerning 'green' things, because, well... well first off they simply wouldn't have any idea what I was talking about. And secondly I really doubt that they care to learn. They just want to feel good that they are being part of something 'good'. Not something that actually, you know, is all messy and hard and problematic and real.

                        Just like you, like a whole lot of burners I meet, as long as y'all have your fun nothing else matters much. And why not. It's just a vacation, a big party after all...
                        • Re: John Law was right...

                          Tue, July 3, 2007 - 4:07 AM
                          Let's see LEED is for sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality. What's the problems with it Jeffrey?
                          • Re: John Law was right...

                            Tue, July 3, 2007 - 11:42 PM
                            LEEDs is certainly a step in the right direction, you betcha.

                            For those that don't know, it's a system of rules that let you 'score' a building on how 'green' it is. High score = high ratings, which come in 'silver', 'gold', and 'platinum'. It's now mandatory that certain state buildings meet a minimum requirement.

                            However, like any system, it has it's faults.

                            The first is that it's a system for grading buildings that's so complex that it takes a lot of time and work and effort and skill to do. It's a huge effort to grade anything, and so as such it's very cumbersome for an everyday designer to try to apply it to anything. The only time I saw it really used was when it was required, and even then most firms would hire a LEEDs consultant to do the grading and to make some recommendations on how to get their score higher. Mind you, not make a better building, but to get a better score. So it's not used as a useful tool to make better designs, but instead as a 'club' to hit designers with or a 'bar' that one must design to get over...

                            Which leads me to the second problem. As with any system of grading, that system can be gamed. For example, part of LEEDs focuses on how much of the overall budget for a project was spent on 'green' things. So if I, as a designer, draw up a building that isn't really that great at all, isn't that green really, but I choose to use some very very expensive interior finishes that can classify as 'green' well then I'm going to get a better score than you, whom might have drawn up a different building that overall is much better, maybe in ways that don't count in the LEEDs game, maybe in ways that do, but you simply don't have the budget I do, so therefore you get the same or less of a score than I did for a building that's actually better.

                            And see? pages of ranting that no one here will probably read. Bet you didn't think I'd post in return, huh? What do you think of LEEDs? Every actually done something with it? I'd love to hear why you think it's the bee's knees. Honestly.
                        • Re: John Law was right...

                          Tue, July 10, 2007 - 8:34 AM
                          to my statement:
                          >"By this line of reasoning, the only way we can really "save the earth" is to kill ourselves (and, as the more radical version goes, take 50 or a hundred with us). "

                          Jeffrey replied:
                          "Wow way to take a joke. "

                          Chris:
                          I don't follow this line of reasoning, and I wasn't implying that you were, either. I was just putting it out there as something that I have actually heard other people say when this topic came up. It gives me hope when people have an adverse reaction to that statement.

                          Jeffery:
                          "The reason I get snarky about this year's theme is that I am a design professional, two tests away from my Architect's license, and have in the past worked for some of the 'greenest' firms in the Bay Area. Now I run my own design firm that makes heavy use of sustainable, water-based, and/or recycled materials and tries to make everything really really efficient and earth-friendly and such."

                          So it's something I take pretty seriously, and have for years."

                          Chris:
                          As far as snark, I'm throwing my share, too-- and it's a basic principle of written communication that it's very hard to convey sarcasm, irony, snarkasm, etc, and no matter how you try, there will always be someone (or lots of someones) who completely miss your point.

                          But, parties in the desert aside, I work as a wildlife toxicologist, so "this whole "Green" thing" is something that I take pretty fuckin' seriously, too (and it warms my heart to hear what you're doing for a living, even though that doesn't make me immune from wanting to ask you some pretty challenging questions about fostering the creation of new buildings on undeveloped terrain, regardless of the history, characteristics, or "color" of the materials ). So don't even get me started on Greenwashing, etc.

                          In all seriousness (despite your admonition not to take this seriously), just EXACTLY what the world needs is for people to be challenged on their assumptions and preconceptions about a whole LOT of stuff.

                          Jeff:
                          "When a died-in-the-wool 'burner' was talking about how important this year's theme was, and how much they were into it, to me once, well, I simply didn't have the heart to ask any real questions. Like how they felt about LEEDs, and it's problems. Or about Greenwashing. Or about any other 'real' topic concerning 'green' things, because, well... well first off they simply wouldn't have any idea what I was talking about. And secondly I really doubt that they care to learn. They just want to feel good that they are being part of something 'good'. Not something that actually, you know, is all messy and hard and problematic and real. "

                          Wow, that's too bad, because that's exactly the types of questions you should be asking them. Though I'm not going to attribute it to any concious choice or motive on the part of BMOrg, I think that this year's theme is more valuable just exactly because it lends itself to this kind of self-examination (much better than "the floating world", which apparently just caused most people to think about pirates).

                          And I think that your concern for the delicate egos of Burners is unwarranted. One thing that I've noticed about a lot of "died-in-the-wool" burners (at least the ones who haven't smothered in their scarves ;- ) is that they are not adverse to thinking, and they tend to have enough sense of self that they aren't crushed if someone challenges their preconceptions. My take on Burning Man is that it seems to be all about crushing preconceptions ("I didn't think people did *that*!!"), and "Burners" seem to be made up mostly of people who didn't run as fast as they could from the playa, never to return, but instead were able to "get the punchline" and incorporate it into their lives (even if it's just "wow- I guess I can't party in the sun and heat for two days without taking care of myself"-- even that is a step on up the ladder, I think)

                          Just an opinion here, but I think that half the problem with the "real world" is that we allow ourselves and everyone else way too much latitude to just meander around safe in our world of half-baked notions. Challenging questions are the sunshine that we need to disinfect the mold growing in our brains. And I really do think that for some percentage of the Burner population, being caused to stop and think about things on the playa (or in the process leading up to it) WILL transmit through to the other 50 weeks of their year. At least, professionally speaking, I hope to hell it will.

                          If we take this so seriously that we can't play around and enjoy, I think that it puts a false choice in front of people: "You can be "serious" about the fate of the world, or you can go to Burning Man." I'm doing my best to NOT take it seriously (let me tell you about my EL-wire bra with animated pinching fingers), but I'm also a lot more mindful of how I'm doing things this year-- riding my bike more, trying harder to reclaim/reuse stuff rather than going out and buying new. And, being challenged to think about what "Green" really means in the context of Burning Man, is leaking through into my "real world", and causing me to think about what "Green" means throughout my life, or style, or lifestyle, or whatever.

                          So, I hope you are planning on joining in on the fun and preconception-pricking! If not (not sure from your posts, but it seems that you're boycotting the whole thing because of its wastrel ways?), that's OK, too. But I know that I'll be out there doing my best to laugh, love, learn, and teach; because for me, anyway, this year is not "just a party", but a "party with a point."
            • Re: John Law was right...

              Thu, June 28, 2007 - 6:57 PM
              but if you cant build it yourself how else are you suppossed to do it? not all of us are inventors or have the personal resources to make something from scratch. at some point, with a subject this big, and potentially world changing, you have to realize that we cant always block out the powerful companies. we have to change them by convincing them that these are the things we need. how else can a society convince its suppliers of what it needs besides to request and purchase it? but for the record: the companies will not be selling anything at burning man!!!! that are showing! they are sharing knowledge!
            • Re: John Law was right...

              Fri, July 13, 2007 - 9:28 AM
              "I guess all I am trying to say here is that consumerisim and being green can not go hand in hand, we CAN NOT buy our way to a greener planet."

              I'm not certain that's true. In fact, I'm increasingly certain that it's not true.
        • Re: John Law was right...

          Wed, June 27, 2007 - 2:28 PM
          who's up for making the first Starbuck's Camp?

          I'm in!

          Aprons for all!

          (Tracy, this is Toast of Toast and Jillian/Because We Can, BTW... in other words, I'm kidding)
          • Re: John Law was right...

            Wed, June 27, 2007 - 2:37 PM
            Well, one of the members of the LLC claims to be a former CIA employee, so who knows what they are up to. I don't really care, actually. I hope it all turns out. Tom Price seems to have a good heart and is a capable leader. My opinion of the LLC is a little different. As long as people pay money and keep coming more and more to the event, they don't have a problem. But if there was some terrible storm and the event was canceled, then that would be a problem--40,000 people staying in the Walmart Parking lot in Reno. Could be ugly. Other than that, the show goes on.

            Now, where do buy some Burning Man cola at?
            • Some perspective

              Wed, June 27, 2007 - 3:07 PM
              I hear the concerns people have mentioned here, and can understand them, but think what's happening is that a business magazine has filtered Burning Man's intentions through their perspective. And I also think the writer was hoping to stir up exactly this kind of controversy--how better to sell magazines? I've been a reporter, so has Shooter, we both know that the juicy quotes get attention.

              The truth, however, is different.

              There will be no marketing or branding of any kind at Burning Man.
              Let me repeat that so that it's clear: no branding, no marketing, no logos.
              No spokespeople, no handouts, no flyers, no press releases, no use of images taken at the event for promotional purposes.
              None. Nada. Zip.

              The Green Man Pavilion is a place where ideas will be exchanged. An example: there's a way to turn garbage into biodiesel. Way cool. Now, I'm not going to tell you who does that, but I'll be there are a lot of you who would like to know how to do that. So, come learn how, then take it home and do it yourself.

              In Larry Harvey's words: "Our environmental exposition will allow you to learn things that you can take back and put to use in your life and your community, continuing the flow of gifts; from artists and innovators to you, from you to the world"

              Please take the time to read the invitation to participants from Larry Harvey, then look at what happens on the playa, then decide whether or not the event is "dead." I'm quite certain a lot of people will be freaking out about this. And I'm equally certain that once they get to the playa and see for themselves, the number will drop to zero.

              In the same way we all take the time to explain to new participants that no, Burning Man is not about naked ravers, it looks like we also have to take the same patience to explain "non-commodification" to business reporters.

              Here's the link to the invitation: www.burningman.com/environm...tion.html
              • Re: Some perspective

                Wed, June 27, 2007 - 5:54 PM
                >Let me repeat that so that it's clear: no branding, no marketing, no logos.
                >No spokespeople, no handouts, no flyers, no press releases,

                From the article:

                "Its [Google's] engineers are building software for unbranded
                kiosks at the pavilion where participants can zoom in to a virtual version
                of Burning Man. Just click on a given technology or art
                project and Google will take you directly to its website."

                How is a kiosk that will take you to a corporate website not marketing?
                • Re: Some perspective

                  Sat, June 30, 2007 - 7:43 PM
                  <How is a kiosk that will take you to a corporate website not marketing?>

                  BINGO. And remember that Google is the new Antichrist. How much does Google know about YOU?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Some perspective

                    Sat, June 30, 2007 - 11:21 PM
                    > And remember that Google is the new Antichrist. How much does Google know about YOU?

                    As much or more than the Mormons I'd wager.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Some perspective

                    Mon, July 2, 2007 - 1:30 AM
                    I used to be very leery of Google. Then I remember reading an article mentioning how Google execs go to BM. Then I had a friend get headhunted to work for them: one of the most radical and awesomely talented guys I know. Then I read the Google book, with the whole chapter on Burning Man. Apparently every other wall is plastered with Burning Man photos.

                    The reason Google's intimately involved with BM and has been for some time [their very first Holiday Logo was The Man] is that THEY ARE BURNERS. FFS.

                    Yes there's a grey area there, but to me it looks like they are still using their power for good, not evil.
                    • Re: Some perspective

                      Mon, July 2, 2007 - 7:08 PM
                      <Yes there's a grey area there, but to me it looks like they are still using their power for good, not evil. >

                      Uh, yeah. A quote:
                      "BEIJING, April 12 — Google's chief executive, Eric E. Schmidt, whose company has been sharply criticized for complying with Chinese censorship, said on Wednesday that the company had not lobbied to change the censorship laws and, for now, had no plans to do so.
                      [....]
                      Google's Chinese search engine, introduced in January, blocks subjects restricted by the government, including searches for "Tibet" and "democracy."

                      URL: www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13...google.html

                      Now, tell me that Google is doing no evil...

                      • Re: Some perspective

                        Tue, July 3, 2007 - 10:36 PM
                        So is a guy working a 9 to 5er in Guangxi who does nothing to lobby the government to change the censorship laws in China and has no plans to do so doing "evil?"
                    • Re: Some perspective

                      Tue, July 10, 2007 - 9:07 PM
                      Cass>> I used to be very leery of Google...

                      Not all Google employees are Burners, and some (I believe) do not even like Burningman (and seem to have contempt for its attendees).
              • Re: Some perspective

                Wed, June 27, 2007 - 5:58 PM
                "An example: there's a way to turn garbage into biodiesel. Way cool. Now, I'm not going to tell you who does that, but I'll be there are a lot of you who would like to know how to do that."


                I'd like to know that.......
            • Re: John Law was right...

              Wed, June 27, 2007 - 8:04 PM
              >Well, one of the members of the LLC claims to be a former CIA employee, so who knows what they are up to/,

              If they were former CIA they wouldn't announce or claim it.

              I know this. I'm CIA.
              • Re: John Law was right...

                Thu, June 28, 2007 - 1:18 AM
                you were not DPW then, LINTY.
                • Re: John Law was right...

                  Thu, June 28, 2007 - 6:29 PM
                  >you were not DPW then, LINTY.<

                  Shooter, dude, don't blow my cover....

                  <looks left then right, rolls under a holly bush>

                  Mmmmmm, Holly's bush
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: John Law was right...

                    Sat, July 7, 2007 - 8:27 AM
                    cia is not auto covert. There are people at doj, nsa, ice, fbi that have more access to info. Gift shop, clerical type jobs, food service, etc.

                    Coulda been in cia (assuming marian is the person referred to). Course they could just be lying and think foil on their head's will prevent aliens from reading their mind. Everyone knows the only way to do that is with cardboard, tin foil and cell phones stapled to ones skull ;-P

                    So, in the interest of checkin this out. Who is the person who is a former gov contractor? (Side note, gov contractors are a dime a dozen and nothing unusual at burn events....apparently some people thought this was wierd but I don't. At least two dozen people I've known that are going to bm come from gov contractor work or government agencies. They just don't mention it during most get togethers with people they don't know.
                    • Re: John Law was right...

                      Sat, July 7, 2007 - 11:34 AM
                      Feedback@ is not a working alias year round, and the only place it's shown on the site lists that it closes Nov. 1. It's an alias manned by a specific group of people for a specific annual task, it's not a general feedback address, and it's not listed as one.

                      If you look around the site you'll find complaints@, questions@, we all know how to contact the JRS, etc. Feedback@ is just not an address we use for that purpose year round.

                      All that said, it's easy to make note of a very broad array of opinions in here, and you can consider them all heard and acknowledged as valid points -- from the naysayers to the yaysayers and everything in between. No one opinion can be said to prevail, and I think the public dialogue is good. We also track the conversation on the regional lists, and to the addresses above, and to our various staff members who hear from within their communities on matters such as these. Looking at the Tribe response is one way to note a segment of our participants' response, but it also doesn't represent "everyone"...it's a safe examination of a segment, though, and the response here is varied just like it is everywhere else, which is a sign of a healthy public discussion.

                      Slippery slopes notwithstanding ("Wow, what are they going to try to do next year?" is not, in the strictest logical sense, an entirely valid argument against these ideas) I think the natural suspicion is good, and as described earlier, it's the same one I had until I realized that this could all be done in a way that didn't violate Burning Man's principles, and that it could actually be a really good thing for this whole community to stare a potentially scary evolution in the face and wrestle with it together like this to make it fit on terms that we would actually be able to embrace.



                      • Re: John Law was right...

                        Sat, July 7, 2007 - 12:57 PM
                        I see Andie. I see,

                        May I suggest that the webpage be updated to communicate this information? Because as of now, the page reads: "CONNECTING WITH THE COMMUNITY: Feedback Loop (posted 9/21/2006)", so according to the information you've just posted on this thread, that page is is completely inaccurate.

                        May I also suggest that the feedback page be open year-round? Burning Man the event, takes place only one week out of the year, but the business of Burning Man, as you know is a year-long endeavor. Even Eplaya, the official BMorg discussion board, has a forum dedicated to "Year-Round Connections". And let's face it, in the real world, the Community (drink!) is active 365/24/7.
                      • Re: John Law was right...

                        Sun, July 8, 2007 - 10:51 AM

                        "Slippery slopes notwithstanding ("Wow, what are they going to try to do next year?" is not, in the strictest logical sense, an entirely valid argument against these ideas)


                        No it's what lawyers use successfully to prevent new rules.....when there is no other argument. The ANSWERS however do reveal a hell of a lot about the reasoning and rationale of the org.


                        I prefer discussion here and elsewhere to sending some "complaint" filled with assumptions. That's not logical for an event that is supposed to be about community. That gives a one or possibly two way exchange of ideas. You all have tons of access to the internet so I'm soooo glad that these things are read by folks involved in the decisions. I will save my email time regarding complaints / questions to my politicians or business. Not BM. Especially since feedback is where i sent my email. Which did NOT bounce back.
              • Re: John Law was right...

                Thu, July 5, 2007 - 7:21 PM
                There are many jobs at the CIA. Not all are clandestine. People work in the gift shop!

                Countless ex-CIA operatives have written books about their exploits, which get edited by CIA goons.

                They employ everyone from garbage men to mathematicians. And being ex-CIA doesn't really mean
                you're connected at all, there really isn't any socializing allowed there.

                Not that I know anything about anything, nor do I even exist.

                *poof*
          • Re: John Law was right...

            Thu, June 28, 2007 - 3:15 PM
            i look good in starbucks forest green

            >who's up for making the first Starbuck's Camp?

            >'m in!

            >Aprons for all!

            >(Tracy, this is Toast of Toast and Jillian/Because We Can, BTW... in other words, I'm kidding)
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Wed, June 27, 2007 - 4:06 PM
        "The article states "...no marketing whatsoever will be allowed at the event. Clean-tech companies can exhibit their technologies, but their products can't display a logo. No marketing materials will be allowed. Company reps can't even demonstrate their wares in the pavilion; they have to turn them over to Burning Man, which will demonstrate the technologies in whatever artistic form it chooses.""

        There's also the fact that, after the burn, I know at least the solar panels are being donated to Gerlach to allow them to become the first solar-powered city in the world... no strings attached, no marketing logos.

        Yeah, wow, that sucks. How dare they change from our usual mass-consumption-and-throw-garbage-all-over-Gerlach-as-we-leave deal? I'm outraged!
        • Re: John Law was right...

          Wed, June 27, 2007 - 4:21 PM
          ""perfect for use at Burning Man""

          Actually, if you want to know the truth, that has always been permitted and there are a number of companies that do it. You can prevent people from using your name commercially in some ways, but there is a difference between "commercial use" and regular old speech, and some of those kinds of mentions cannot actually be prevented, and some of them have indeed happened for years.

          I think if you looked around you'd find there are already quite a few companies that have been using this kind of soft mention in a completely legal way, and not to downplay that, but so far it hasn't ruined my experience, so long as they don't do it on the playa, don't actually violate trademarks in a way we have to enforce, and don't use imagery, for example. "Perfect for Burning Man," in certain cases, is actually not something you can legally enforce against, and some have done it. There are times we can enforce against it, and times we can't. IT really depends on how it's presented. The volunteer IP team and I spend a lot of time talking with people about this area of the law.

          But that's not on the playa. Those that try to do any kind of marketing on-playa tend to immediately receive the derision of their neighbors, the attention of the Media Team, and occasionally, if they don't listen to reason, the boot of the eviction squad. I've participated in stopping such things and have been carefully participating in this idea as it's evolved and feel confident that your playa experience will remain unmarred by commercial proposition.

          The fact is, our policies on the playa remain the same. At its heart, this new thing is about sharing ideas, not "product marketing", no matter what words Business2's article uses to describe it in their readers' language. I liken it to this: there are massage therapists on playa who gift their services, the same services they "sell" in the real world. There are artists who make their living doing large scale fire art, but who come to the playa and do it as a gift with no expectation of return. Folks who fix bikes for a living that fix bikes on the playa but do it for free. See where I'm going with this? Perhaps the inventors participating in the pavilion could actually be doing this for the same reason, because they want to be a part of this big experiment and share *ideas* with us, and not because they want to sell something? Think about it. Some of the contributors to the Pavilion are burners who have been coming to the event longer than you and I have, as a matter of fact. Maybe their motivations are actually purer than they're represented in the article. Maybe they're closer to you and me than we're giving them credit for.
          • Re: John Law was right...

            Sun, July 1, 2007 - 5:25 PM
            whew~
            Coming' late to this party...but I have a feeling of ...hmmm...understanding?..when I read this aspect of Andies post:
            <<There are artists who make their living doing large scale fire art, but who come to the playa and do it as a gift with no expectation of return. Folks who fix bikes for a living that fix bikes on the playa but do it for free. See where I'm going with this? >>

            I had to agree in my black lil' heart:

            Disclaimer:
            venting to begin in
            10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, ....

            OK. Yes. I am a costumer and sculptor. I make stuff for a living.
            OK. Yes. I make MONEY from my skills and enjoy it immensely!
            OK. YES. I make beautiful things for Burning man participants who wear them on and off playa.
            This makes me feel very good and I also get paid MONEY for the services I provide, off playa.

            BUT.....and everyone has a but....I don't run around the playa while on the playa announcing my services to ensure more work in the coming 51 weeks. That'd be just down-right ickky and against why I attend.

            Ya see, I have been beaten up pretty regularly by the post-playa nazis who like to accuse me of profiting from the event like some sort of parasite. Seriously, I don't charge a penny for the performances I do when out there. I don't charge ya for the large art I've funded, designed, delivered, installed, and maintained for ya, do I? I don't require you to renumerate me when you find out I can sew and help you patch up your tattered and ill-conceived mooping costume while on playa?
            NO.
            I don't.
            I participate and contribute and buy ice like all ya cubicle jockies. Big difference is when I return to MY default world, I get into my office <read: studio> to work on new ideas creations, and concepts for the next year for others who do not have the skillset I posess in weeping abundance. Seriously, I can't believe the Imperial metric fuckton of shit I get from some people on how I "commodify" the bleeding event all the while they bleat on and on about the solid, sturdy construction of carport xyz-101 found at the local big box company.
            BAH!
            Support your big corporations but beat up the artists you claim to be the life-blood of this event. Sounds like business as usual.

            Not to sound BITTER or anything, but getcher priorities and perspective straight. When we leave it <BRC> there is a real nasty assed default world out there which requires real nasty assed money to survive. The non-pro artists return to this default, make their mortgages and Lexus payments and carry on. Life's beautiful. I don't do code, accounting, or sales. I'm an artist with a product you want and desire to take with you to BRC....there is no harm in that.

            hmmmmmmm.....Just like I desire a bitchen' h2o back pack that maybe some of you have been part of producing?

            Venting/off





            Oh yeah....I still have a little time left to make you a real pimpin' furry coat and assless chaps to match, so your costuming needs are met.
            <gotta get that plug in there somewhere, right?>...and where in the hell do I line up for my Camp Starbucks apron? I don't wanna be one of the 'uncool' kids.
            • Re: John Law was right...

              Sun, July 1, 2007 - 5:29 PM
              >And remember that Google is the new Antichrist. How much does Google know about YOU?
              As much or more than the Mormons I'd wager<

              Oh Damn.
              I think I just laughed so hard as to soil myself!

              thanks, I needed that.
              • Re: John Law was right...

                Sun, July 1, 2007 - 5:40 PM
                >I also think burners supporting other burners with business patronage is a great idea, and I support it if done in certain ways. I buy my EL wire from some folks for the simple fact that they are burners and I would rather my money go to them than Chucky McMalFart. But if they ever straight up advertise on the playa, I’ll swear them off in a heartbeat. I support burner business networking but it has to be within context. ..... But the real gold is in the wealth of human spirit that this community builds from nothing but sweat and dry alkaline dust. And with any percieved threat to that, people are gonna get quick to defend it.

                If you have a company that can build that type of capital and make the world greener too, then I hope you succeed beyond your wildest dreams. I sincerely mean that. And I don’t doubt one bit that a world full of conscientious business leaders could make a much better society. <


                Oh Christ!
                Now I am all swoony!

                Do it on the Playa, play with it and see if it flies.
                Take it off the Playa and implement it into your life and teach others.

                Sure hope we, as the community we claim to be, can achieve such grand goals.
        • Re: John Law was right...

          Wed, June 27, 2007 - 5:14 PM
          Fine. I didn't know the solar panels were being gifted to the community we trash. Last year I had to go to the emergency room by way of the Gerlach health clinic. I have nothing but love for those people who put up with our crap year after year. I would never dump my trash there.

          So maybe I got caught up in the article....You must admit that was a shock. I'm still going, but I leave you with the words of Hunter S. Thompson:

          Strange memories on this nervous night in Las Vegas. Has it been five years? Six? It seems like a lifetime, the kind of peak that never comes again. San Francisco in the middle sixties was a very special time and place to be a part of. But no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant.

          There was madness in any direction, at any hour. You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning.

          And that, I think, was the handle - -that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn't need that. Our energy would simply prevail. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
  • Re: John Law was right...

    Wed, June 27, 2007 - 3:15 PM
    damn, I love listening to the over reactions here.
    how many different pieces of equipment do we use because it has a good rep amoung ourselves and our friends.
    JBL speakers handle hard conditions
    costco steel carports handle the beatings we give things.
    we know that a ryder truck under that tarp over there
    we know who makes el-wire and where to get it.
    we know aluminet makes great shade stuctures, but cost wise a parachute works pretty well,

    we know these things cause we bring them out there and playa test (or in our backyards) them to our satisfaction. we share that information.
    at least as I read how this is going to work is that it isn't come look at our tech and we'll tell you how to buy it, it's we are giving this tech to you to go beat the hell out of it and we hope you like it alot. if your curious ask someone in the know about who made it.

    this of course comes from some one who doesn't have a problem with the coffee bar (IMO prioritizing a immediacy over demodification) or the ice sales (health and good neighbors over decommodification)

    taz
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Wed, June 27, 2007 - 4:00 PM
      Good point Taz but JBL doesn't print, "As seen at Burning Man" in it's marketing campaign. Ryder actually hates renting trucks to playa bound folks because of the dust. Numerous companies make el-wire, it's not a brand. And yes, we use aluminet but you don't see a note in the specs saying "perfect for use at Burning Man". The companies/corporations sponsoring Burning Man will now be able to say, "As featured at Burning Man's Green Pavilion." Yes, we won't be bombarded by ads this year but to know that these companies will be using Burning Man to sell more product cheapens the experience and leaves a bad taste in my mouth....or was that the questionable ham n' cheese I just ate....?
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Sat, June 30, 2007 - 7:49 PM
      <damn, I love listening to the over reactions here.
      how many different pieces of equipment do we use because it has a good rep amoung ourselves and our friends. >

      Fine, that's what trade shows, home shows, and county fairs are about, right? BMan was built on a whole different idea. I would not spend 8 days in the middle of desert on the hottest week of the year if it were a trade show. I've gone because it was a *different* kind of event. And likewise other folks have done so for the same reason. We can always go to see hucksters; SF's Moscone Center has all kinds of shows like most weeks of the year.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: John Law was right...

    Wed, June 27, 2007 - 5:16 PM
    Upon re-reading the article ( Which everyone should do after reading all of the different responces here),
    It seems pretty low key and the analogy about all of the commonly used products at BRC being no different actually makes sense!
    So long as we are not inundated post event with " As seen at Burningman" ads or such , what the Hell.
    Bmans website has long had a link to burner friendly products and suppliersand it is actually quite helpful.
    If it turns out that the displays are blatant advertising ,then the responce from burners may not be what the companies had hoped for, but I'd bet that alot of them are burners as well and won't cross that line!
    ~Wendell~
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Wed, June 27, 2007 - 5:31 PM
      unfortunately, the format of the article makes reading it a pain in the ass. is there a way to enlarge the text of the entire article, or do i have to do it manually on every goddamned page?

      or maybe my center-of-the-universe powers are fading.

      in simplistic terms (and from an uneducated layman's mindset) the bigger it gets, the bigger it gets.
  • Re: John Law was right...

    Wed, June 27, 2007 - 5:38 PM
    interesting article. even if there isn't any advertising on the playa those companies will certainly benefit from the publicity as the CEO of the solar panel company states in the article. will the companies do an agreement with the LLC to not use it in thier advertising? it is creepy to read one of LLC talk about what a great target market we are but then again it's also true judging from the survey info.

    I think what is funnier is that people claim that burning man is anti-commericialism. I mean it's a for profit, LLC with no shareholders or accountability, where to go people either have to create something as a means of entrance, volunteer for the org (and yes often those folks don't always get free tickets) or pay for a ticket. just because it isn't allowed at the event doesn' take away from the fact it is a commerical venture. then you have all the businesses that are supported by burners, the business that were thought of at burning man and all the social connections that are made at burning man which have led to people finding jobs, homes and other services.

    I know the LLC and larry like to go on about the anti-commericialism and how radical burning man is but it's not that more radical most large art or music gatherings. perhaps it was in 96 but those days are long gone.

    all of which I personally have no illusions about and will be back for the seventh year for another fun vacation. between art projects and my theme camp activities as well as just roaming around I wonder if I'll even get to see this pavillion of wonder.
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Wed, June 27, 2007 - 5:47 PM
      Hmm...we never say we're anti commercialism. We say anti-commodification, and I think there's a difference. Check it out: www.burningman.com/preparat...sum1.html

      And yes, there will be written agreements with these Pavilion participants clearly laying out the parameters.

      Chai, you probably know that I can't comment on any pending legal cases out there. Sorry.
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Thu, June 28, 2007 - 12:16 AM
        oh andie,
        as they say to-MATO, TO-mato. if it makes you feel better to wrap it up in a pretty package, good for you, doesn't mean I have to buy into concepts that weren't even introduced for the first 10 years of burning man.

        from larry's mouth via your link:
        "Our annual event in the desert is meant to provide an example what can happen in a community when social interactions cease to be mediated by a marketplace."

        considering that we are all paying in services (art) or money (tickets) how is the marketplace removed from burning man?

        why does the LLC feel the need to wrap an art and music festival in a cloak of "holier than thou radical change"?

        it's your festival (literally unless law's lawsuit changes that). you have good lawyers and I'm sure your written agreements with the business will be great for the LLC's.

        I do have a couple of questions.
        will the participants from these companies be buying tickets?
        will the participants be camping trailers and will thier camps be on the grid?
        will they be giving money to the LLC to be there?
        who will be paying for and building this wonder Pavillon?
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Fri, June 29, 2007 - 4:57 PM
        "Decommodification is the process of viewing utilities as an
        entitlement, rather than as a commodity that must be paid or
        traded for. In effect, a decommodified product removes itself
        from the market, and can be associated with welfarism. An
        example of decommodification would be the removal of tolls from a toll road."

        Is this the definition BM is using? This seems to suggest that de(/anti)commodification would entail the ice, power, and other services being provided free. How is this in line with the current strategy?

        Curious,
        Bartholomew


      • Re: John Law was right...

        Sun, July 8, 2007 - 10:55 AM
        Decommodification
        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. We resist the substitution of consumption for participatory experience.

        By BM's own definition there is advertising as an example of decommodification.
        By the org's own mission statement/ principles it is positively incorrect to suggest this is in line with decomodification.
        Transactions too. Arguably the resistance part since the corporations were INVITED>

        Please look up the words in websters - not some link used to justify and spin what is patently illogical and hypocritical.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: John Law was right...

    Wed, June 27, 2007 - 7:18 PM
    I feel like I'm the only person not shocked and appalled by this. For one thing, this isn't really new news. Some of that info has been available to the public for some time now, such as the involvement of large companies in this year's green theme. Also, much of what I'm seeing here feels like a reactionary Money Bad, Fire Pretty argument (or the Business Evil, Fire Pretty argument). The reality is that the event cannot be a large as it is and function successfully without operating as a business of some kind. "Business" and "commerce" are not inherently evil, destructive concepts. There are ways to operate in a smart manner without sacrificing humanity. And seriously, the article was in a BUSINESS magazine, of course they're going to be using terms like "demographic" and "profit" to describe Burning Man, the article is written in a language geared toward corpations, executives, financial consultants, etc.

    in the words of Shakespeare, via the Venture Bros.: "It's all sound and fury, signifying nothing". ;)
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Thu, June 28, 2007 - 12:19 AM
      no I'm not shocked or appalled or surprised. the LLC is a business acting like a business. not nessasarly using a great or progress model of business especially when they go on about not wanting the "marketplace to influence people's lives."
  • Re: John Law was right...

    Wed, June 27, 2007 - 9:15 PM
    For some strange reason I never thought of Larry Harvey as being some big sort of ego-maniac, like maybe a quarter of burners like to describe him as, but I think reading that it appears as if 'Maid Marian' is the true force behind the corporatisation of the Burning Man brand. I mean how more clear can that be, I've heard him say it before, and he says it again here, BM may not last another 10 years, however, MG says "the business model can totally function without Larry Harvey".

    I'm just glad I got in here before she took over the whole damn thing and destroyed it completely!
  • About Trust.

    Wed, June 27, 2007 - 11:03 PM
    “This community is a dream for anyone looking for demographics” Goodell says, “We have kids who work in coffee shops and we have billionaires. To ignore the value of our brand, the buying power it has, is silly. . . “
    (Direct quote from the article)

    The way I see it is that we, the burners’ community make BM what it is, by our labor, by using our personal funds, and our creative talent.
    And BMORG is fixing to capitalize on OUR “buying power”. Shame on you !

    I don’t care how well disguised this attempt may be. I don’t believe that BMORG is doing this without expectation of some tangible gain (to them, of course, not to us).
    And the simple reason for my skepticism is this:
    Why on Earth would they do this, knowing how objectionable “we” will find it?
    So Andie, help me out here. Please help me understand (in simple terms) why does the ORG make this controversial move?

    And Andie, I like you, but in view of this recent development, the fine distinction between “commercialism” and ”commodification” does not inspire much trust regarding the BMORG true intentions.
    And I don’t need to tell you that trust is difficult to build, but is easy to destroy.

    Realistically, the likely scenario is that BMORG will do what they plan to do.
    Our venting here will likely not affect any change of their plans or their thinking.

    And that’s the way it is.


  • Re: John Law was right...

    Thu, June 28, 2007 - 12:10 AM
    Ya know, this underground sort of marketing has been happening all along. It isn't anything new, it is just that the org is willing to leverage it into financial security (or substantial personal gain?). Here is an example of the goodwill non-commercial marketing. Last year there was Ben and Jerry's ice cream given away in front of the cafe. People have known for years that Ben attends the event. Everyone knew it was Ben and Jerry's ice cream. The only clear indication that it was Ben and Jerry's were the names of the ice creams (ie. Cherry Garcia). Nobody complained. The ice cream was a goodwill gift to the community. It was not distributed to advertise or promote. No brand was promoted or pushed on people. You just knew, and like any other gift on the playa, it was a gift from one burner to another. Thank you Ben.

    I don't think this is going to ruin the event. It could...
    Only time will tell, eh.
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Thu, June 28, 2007 - 12:15 AM
      I dont the ice cream giveaway was a company thing, I think it was something Ben did with an organization he is involved with outside of Ben and Jerrys.

      I dont recall the exact details, but i did ask about whether Ben and Jerry's was involved in filling my stomach with tasty ice cream happiness. I asked one of the ice cream scooper people who seem to know what he was talking about he said it wasnt a company thing at all , but Ben's thing..

      I wish I recalled the details but I dont. Perhaps others will..
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Thu, June 28, 2007 - 12:39 AM
        It may not have been a corporate decision, but that is only a technicality. It had the same effect. It was Ben and Jerry's. We knew it. It was good, and gave some people a more positive feeling about the ice cream brand. Ben's motives were to share with burners as a burner. It still had the side effect of underground gorilla marketing. That isn't a criticism or accusation concerning Ben's motives, just a reality.

        So the company that is contributing the solar panels is doing something similar, but in their case it is part of a corporate strategy for promotion and PR. I don't know that it makes them evil. We many come to appreciate that some corporations share burner attitudes and values, even if they are also motivated by profit.

        At any rate the event must maintain a policy against any overt branding or product promotion. If not it will certainly lose the feeling of being free from corporate manipulation.
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Thu, June 28, 2007 - 2:43 AM
      >Last year there was Ben and Jerry's ice cream given away in front of the cafe< >Everyone knew it was Ben and Jerry's ice cream<

      Probably not a great example as Ben and Jerry sold the company to Unilever about 7 years ago.

      Though Ben did use SF burner artists (Flash being one of them) to build the topsy turvy bus.
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Thu, June 28, 2007 - 7:05 AM
        Doesn't change that the gifting of the ice cream has the effect of gorilla marketing and that it happens all the time a Burning Man. Rock bands get exposure, new products are discovered. You learn of a great new thing through a gift. It has always been happening, as a byproduct of our other activities. It can't be stopped. We can only prevent the overt branding, product promotion and vending.
        • Confession: I was skeptical

          Thu, June 28, 2007 - 8:34 AM
          The companies and innovators aren't paying any kinds of fees to be there, we're not giving them trailers or anything special, they're participating like an artist building a piece would. There are agreements they will sign in order to participate in the way we're laying out for them.

          Silverman is right. And yes this is an experiment, and a matter of trust. It will be interesting. I think far from insulting our community it shows a great deal of faith in their intellect. I think these technologies and ideas presented in an artistic and creative way have the potential to change the way a lot of us are looking at our daily lives and might teach us all some new things. There are several articles about this in the upcoming newsletter that will hit mailboxes in the coming weeks that can give examples and examine in more detail.

          And if it helps any? Six months ago I was saying a lot of the things you guys are saying here, at first; as this idea was explored and evolved and we worked together to put it into terms that worked for us as burners, and talk to the kinds of people who might participate and see whether they understood what we meant, I have become convinced it's an experiment worth doing. I stand by what I said above and I think that some of these folks might deserve the benefit of the doubt about why they'd come to Burning Man to do all this stuff at considerable expense to themselves and with no opportunity to "advertise" their brand on their inventions.

          Then again, I have a lot of faith in the experience of Burning Man and what these folks might learn by participating in it, much more than I believe that these particular participants have the power to "ruin" the thing we love despite our best efforts to protect it.

          I think this can work if we're vigilant and careful, and I don't disagree that it's a matter of having to trust us to handle their presence and trust that they would want their stuff turned into artistic creations and presentations for no other reason than to share the ideas with you with no expectation of return...except the benefit of possibly improving the world by showing a bunch of incredibly smart people some new ways to deal with problems that threaten our existence. That, I'll give you, might be a self-serving reason for them to invest this energy, money, and time.


          • Re: Confession: I was skeptical

            Thu, June 28, 2007 - 8:52 AM
            >with no opportunity to "advertise" their brand on their inventions. <

            Utilikilts probably has more "advertising" going on for their products out on the playa than these folks would seem to have the opportunity for.....
            • Re: Confession: I was skeptical

              Thu, June 28, 2007 - 9:00 AM
              Yeah, I giggled when I heard this one yesterday, don't know who said it: "REI should do a display, then it would be the only camp on the playa WITHOUT an REI logo on it." *snort*
          • Re: Confession: I was skeptical

            Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:15 AM
            There is nothing inherently wrong in a business organization seeking to increase their revenue.
            But there is a real moral and ethical question when said revenue is generated mainly by free volunteer labor, donated creative (and financial) resources, and a “gift economy”

            Furthermore, I still don’t understand what is the reason for BMORG making this controversial choice.

            I previous posted this:
            “Andie, help me out here. Please help me understand (in simple terms) why does the ORG make this controversial move?”), but I did not see an answer (yet).
            So let me try again:
            Why is this “new & improved” concept necessary at all?

            What does the event, the burners’ community or the BMORG stand to gain from having these “non commercial” commercial displays?

            Does Maid Marian’s comment about OUR “buying power” (see below:)
            bm.tribe.net/thread/adb2...928385a7359a
            contain a clue about the real motivation behind this “business decision”?

            And if the Org (via Andie) chooses to ignore these legitimate questions, is it reasonable to assume that their silence indicates an element “bad faith” on their part?

            Like Andie, I am very skeptical (and somewhat indignant) too.
            As the saying goes:"You can fool all the people some of the times, some of the people all the times, but you can't fool......."

          • Re: Confession: I was skeptical

            Thu, June 28, 2007 - 1:58 PM
            so andie just to be clear when I chat with one of these fine folks they wouldn't tell me they were given one of those nice gift tickets the LLC people like to hand out, thier camps and rv's wouldn't be connected to the cities power grid, the LLC wouldn't be paying for this pavillon structure, org resource wouldn't be used to transport and house thier products and there wouldn't be any more business puff piece with folks like marian saying what a great target marketing group we are.

            you will of course like any ethical business have transparentcy in this affair like the LLC has in all it's financial dealings and will put the agreement on the website or at least have copies available for the people paying to attend the event, right?

            just one little suggestion, when doing things that may piss off your economic base, consider telling them about it before you brag about what good marks we are to market to in an industry rag.
            • Re: Confession: I was skeptical

              Thu, June 28, 2007 - 3:25 PM
              The invitation to participate was announced on the Burning Man website months ago, so I feel like we have been forthcoming with details as they have evolved. Feel free to stop by and talk to anyone you see working on the Pavilion. Yes, the organization is building the structure, etc. No I can't promise there won't be more media who key on this and write what they want about our actions, here - freedom of the press, and all.

              Turtle, it seems to me you're hearing what you want to hear, since the conversation here has been quite measured, the opinions mixed in a very healthy way...and I am sorry but I don't see that you can claim to speak for everyone, though I respect your right to your opinion. I've pretty much said everything I can say at this point; the rest of the proof will be in the pudding.
              • Re: Confession: I was skeptical

                Thu, June 28, 2007 - 5:05 PM
                so andie you said the LLC was treating them like any other artist on the playa. so what artist or art project is the LLC building a structure for. please answer the other questions about whether they will be given tickets or will on the electric grid. being evasive is just silly, isn't it. Maybe it's policy but you can do better than that. Also could you explain how companies bringing their products to demo on the playa is the same as artists creating art for burning man. Having a hard time following you comparing them to artists on the playa.

                really I wish you all would just be a little bit more honest. as for freedom of press, you decide (maid marian in particular) who you talk to, you write hundreds of cease and desist letter. The LLC does a terrific legal and publicity job up there with disney and coke with protect it's image and name.

                I'm not hearing anything, just reading your own words and looking for clarification. I understand you've had this conversations a million times and are well versed in the language of the LLC but I haven't given much a shit about how your company actually works, choosing for most of the past eight years to focus on the art and commmunity and trying to not think about six people who actually own burning man. however when someone for the org that says it's all about non-commodification is quoted as saying "this community is a dream for anyone looking at demographics"Goodall says. "to ignore the value of our brand, the buying power it has, is silly". if these companies aren't there to sell stuff, why would they care about our buying power. If burning man is about non commidification then why is Marian talking about marketing to and influencing burners based on the fact they go to burning man.

                really please explain this to me because until now I guess I was naive and didn't realize that those in the LLC see the folks that attend as nothing more than a brand and economic base.

                if you guys want to be glastonbury or coachella why not just admit it instead preach that burning man is made by the people and yet you make all the decisions about very character of the event.
              • Re: Confession: I was skeptical

                Thu, June 28, 2007 - 5:09 PM
                also I don't speak for anyone but myself, did I say I did? but even as one individual at burning man do I not have a right to know what goes on at the festival? I understand you do not speak for yourself and it is your job to protect your company but I fail to see how disclosing this information would harm your company? so as only one person am I not worth a reply?
        • Re: John Law was right...

          Fri, June 29, 2007 - 9:21 AM
          >gifting of the ice cream has the effect of gorilla marketing

          Gorillas are notoriously hard to market to as they have no money. I don't think they're big ice cream fans either - maybe chunky monkey? ;-)
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: John Law was right...

    Thu, June 28, 2007 - 8:41 AM
    Unbelieveable. I don't even know how to react to this. Part of me wants to sell my tickets to Burning Man for this year and just forget about the whole thing. The other part of me wants to still head out to the playa for one last fun time. The "one last fun time" side of me is not winning the battle though, it's a long hard trek getting to the playa and setting up. If this is going to be a trade show I want my god damn convention center hotel. $250 is a lot of fucking money and the BMorg should be investing in a Hilton franchise to put us all up in. Maybe they can get Paris to do the ribbon cutting!

    This is the end boys and girls. The curtains have opened on the final act, and there's a body of Man laying dead center stage.
    • Find a dictionary...

      Thu, June 28, 2007 - 9:25 AM
      A trade show is "an exhibition organised so that companies in a specific industry can showcase and demonstrate their new products and services"

      An exposition (expo) is "a collection of things (goods or works of art etc.) for public display"

      In EVERY SINGLE web page, email, contract, conversation and phone call about this project, we've talked about it as an Expo. Language matters. So does intent. The intent is to share ideas. So that's what we're doing.

      You'll see things that will show you how to turn garbage to fuel. How to switch a car from petroleum to biodiesel. How much energy you can save using various kinds of lighting. How a couple sticks, properly burned, can heat your whole house. How to hear music or light the night, without ever using another battery. How to run computers and everything else in a school--for free. You'll see art exploring the scope of our culture's consumption. You'll hear the sound of vanishing landscapes. You'll see a portable solution for the "last mile" dilemma of public transit. You'll see how to build cities that eat and run off their own waste. You'll see how you can build your own contraption to eat exhaust and farm free biofuels.

      What you won't see is any of it for sale. You won't see any labels. You won't see any brands. You won't see any advertisements after the event saying "as seen at Burning Man."

      There's a difference between trade show and exhibition, just as there is a difference between a rave and burning man. If you want to see the former, go hang around Moscone Center. If you'd like to see what the latter looks like, be about 10 miles north of Gerlach Nevada at the end of August.
      • Re: Find a dictionary...

        Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:00 AM
        Tom, I really appreciate your explanations.

        Andie, There are two things from the article and this issue that really get me...

        1. You said above <<I think that some of these folks might deserve the benefit of the doubt about why they'd come to Burning Man to do all this stuff...>> What I understand from the article is that the reason they are coming is that they were INVITED to come. I don't understand why the BMORG felt a need to invite companies to come, rather than just doing the same thing with people who were already coming. Please explain the thinking behind the original invitation. I would really like to understand this.

        2. I know that people are often misquoted or taken out of context in the media, so I always give the benefit of the doubt...but this quote leaves an awful taste in my mouth:

        "This community is a dream for anyone looking at demographics,” Goodell says. “We have kids who work in coffee shops and we have billionaires. To ignore the value of our brand, the buying power it has, is silly. But it’s a ritual for these people, which is why it’s going to be hard for them seeing businesses out there.”

        These people?! It's true, it will be hard for many of us. And I do have faith that the whole thing can work out as a beautifully creative passing on of important information that people can use and build on in their own lives. But, please tell me, the attitude in this quote does not accurately represent the person at the top of all this.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Find a dictionary...

        Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:08 AM
        relieved to see others who are more level about this, here and elsewhere.

        instead fo seeing this as a sign that burning man is "selling out" or whatever, I wish people should take a step back to realize that a BUSINESS magazine recognized the burning man organization -- that's pretty radical -- and take it as an indication that the business world is changing, albeit slowly, to a more human and creative degree. We're so entrenched in it that we forget that for most of the mainstream, particularly business, burning man is about as radical "counter culture" as you can get. Which means it's a positive sign that burning man is being recognized and companies are contributing: "hey those freaky artsy kids are actually talented and smart."

        Also, as has been said, in some cases we get the benefit of the innovations and knowledge of these companies. Do you think they'd ordinarily share this kind of stuff with just any body? Often they hold any discoveries and technology tight so they don't lose competitive advantage. And when they are displayed it's often in an industry-only show that is not open to the public. Also, why do we assume that the people who have created these exhibits don't share our interests and concerns? that they aren't equally as creative? A company is made of people, individuals who just want to get paid for doing what they love (or just pay the rent). These people/companies have much greater funds for research adn development tham we could ever hope to have. I think it's good we can take advantage of those resources.

        Maybe we'll learn from them and find inspiration for our own projects. Maybe they'll learn from us and absorb some of the bman principles. I don't think this needs to be an Us vs. Them thing.


        Tom and Andie,
        I appreciate you sharing more about how this came about and how it's been handled.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Find a dictionary...

        Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:09 AM
        Tom how about this. If this is (as you claim) just a free exchange of ideas DON'T CHARGE THE CORPORATIONS. The BMorg should keep their hands clean. Remember when tickets were a new idea? Who'd have thought that somebody they'd be $400 at the gate? As it is now the BMorg is considering a form of advertising at the event, and the BMorg is MAKING MONEY ON IT. What if the BMorg decides they like that money too, and start dreaming up new ways to entice more advertisers? They opened the gates, their sin is collecting money for the exchange of IDEAS.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Find a dictionary...

        Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:11 AM
        >What you won't see is any of it for sale. You won't see any labels. You won't see any brands. You won't see any advertisements after the event saying "as seen at Burning Man." <

        thats reasonable.

        >>>You'll see things that will show you how to turn garbage to fuel. How to switch a car from petroleum to biodiesel. How much energy you can save using various kinds of lighting. How a couple sticks, properly burned, can heat your whole house. How to hear music or light the night, without ever using another battery. How to run computers and everything else in a school--for free. You'll see art exploring the scope of our culture's consumption. You'll hear the sound of vanishing landscapes. You'll see a portable solution for the "last mile" dilemma of public transit. You'll see how to build cities that eat and run off their own waste. You'll see how you can build your own contraption to eat exhaust and farm free biofuels. <<<

        THAT is fucking cool as hell! are you people crazy? this sounds like the shit! you want to protest, geez. what a bunch of hippies.
        people, this is human creativity as shown in a way that you can see there are minds at work trying to find a solution to our environmental woes in the real world!!! someone please explain to me why you wouldn't want to see these things unless you were totally retarded or a hippie?
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Find a dictionary...

        Thu, June 28, 2007 - 1:44 PM
        Sorry Tom but you and Andie sound exactly like Tony Snow and the rest of the Bush mouthpieces.

        It's not a trade show it's an expo.
        we never say we're anti commercialism. We say anti-commodification
        It's not nation building we are spreading democracy
        It's not escalation it's a surge.

        Yes language does matter. Even more so when your saying one thing and claiming it's something else.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: John Law was right...

    Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:17 AM
    So I re read the article last night. I talked to my best friend and burner who is far less anti big business than I am. I can see the argument clearly that their is MASS gorilla style marketing on the playa, REI and Ben and Jerry's are GREAT examples.

    My fear is that these are not business that are just benefiting as a side market, for example REI, yeah they make a ton of money off burners every year, but I have never seen a picture or heard the playa mentioned in any of the adds/ catalogs/ workshops I have attended there. I know they are aware of us burners, and the month before "burner" friendly products are moved to the front displays of the stores, however they are not "using" it.

    The companies that are coming to the playa, no matter how they dress up or down their products as "art" are hoping, no, striving for a direct profit from the citizens of BRC. I am not really seeing this as a bad things per say. Now that I have re-evaluated it. I can see how it will benefit people like my friend who have no experience with solar or wind generation and are not internet geeks like me reading about it all the time. I however am at this point going to reserve my judgment of trust in the LLC and how they choose to handle this situation until I am on the playa. Like I said earlier, if I feel slighted I will make it apparent. And with so many great festivals popping up all over, If the LLC kills my trust in their ability to maintain the central spirit of the people I will just stop going to BM associated events.

    The jury is out and I really hope the LLC realized that.
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:30 AM
      >Like I said earlier, if I feel slighted I will make it apparent. <

      And damn it, have fun with it!!!!
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: John Law was right...

        Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:33 AM
        o you know I will! that is one of the joys of burning man is that I still can be artistically expressive

        as for hummers well unless your talking about the organic kinda hummer... ahhh never mind
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: John Law was right...

    Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:28 AM
    at a basic level I'm concerned about the $800,000 the BMorg is getting for these non-branded displays. A proprietary product, even without a brand name label is still a unique object with an identity associated with it. I'm also concerned about the BMorg's track record of opening the door slightly only to keep opening the door wider and wider every year (ticket prices anybody?)

    I have grave concerns about the co modification of my eye balls. I can't even tell you how much MUNI's "your eye balls can't escape an advertisement" campaigns bug me. I was trained to read all advertisements with a critical eye, that means when I'm in a MUNI station my mind can NEVER be at peace since it needs to intercept constant advertising messaging and disable it before it gets lodged into my psyche. I shouldn't have to feel this way at Burning Man, hell, I pay to to goto Burning Man not to feel that way.
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:55 AM
      Sigh...

      Moist, you come off as being so intelligent until you start freaking out over stuff that you have obviously not completely researched. If only you used your mind for good instead of evil...

      1. "at a basic level I'm concerned about the $800,000 the BMorg is getting for these non-branded displays." - Any particular reason why? Considering the org is constantly trying to drum up more money for basic services and art funding, I'd think this was a good thing... especially since there's still no branding or marketing going on at the event. Free money for sharing new ideas with no corporate sponsorship, yay!

      2. "A proprietary product, even without a brand name label is still a unique object with an identity associated with it." - El wire, anyone? What's next, a cry to ban all widely used objects on playa because they're recognizeable even without labels?

      3. "I'm also concerned about the BMorg's track record of opening the door slightly only to keep opening the door wider and wider every year (ticket prices anybody?)" - If you'd used your Special Intelligent Boy Research Powers, you'd know that the ticket prices go up because the BLM fees and porta potty costs go up. It's not exactly hidden information. So sad... you're making me cry here.

      4. "I shouldn't have to feel this way at Burning Man, hell, I pay to to goto Burning Man not to feel that way." - Sorry, I still don't see the connection between MUNI's barrage of clearly printed advertising covering every wall and Burning Man allowing non-branded free technology to be displayed, used, discussed, and then donated at the event. Please feel free to explain how they're connected in further detail.
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Thu, June 28, 2007 - 11:04 AM
        >What's next, a cry to ban all widely used objects on playa because they're recognizeable even without labels? <

        Will this mean that MoistPup won't be allowed to offer his butt up during the Adoration event? After all I saw a picture of it out here on tribe
        • Re: John Law was right...

          Thu, June 28, 2007 - 11:22 AM
          Andie, I appreciate your response, but you still didn't say how much Current TV is paying to be there? Do they pay burning man to have their link on the homepage too?
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: John Law was right...

        Thu, June 28, 2007 - 11:17 AM
        ------ Guess Said ---
        Moist, you come off as being so intelligent until you start freaking out over stuff that you have obviously not completely researched. If only you used your mind for good instead of evil...
        ---------------------------

        Nice backhanded complement. Just because you disagree with me though doesn't mean I'm any less intelligent.

        ---- Guess be sayin' : ---------
        1. "at a basic level I'm concerned about the $800,000 the BMorg is getting for these non-branded displays." - Any particular reason why?
        ------------

        Despite what you say about looking for increased revenues for art, I'm not sure that we've seen an increase in overall art subsidies on playa in recent years despite a couple of these corporate deals (the Discovery Channel thing two years ago, and this year the advertising fees) Why charge any fees at all? If this is a free exchange of ideas the corporations should be allowed to display their items for the price of a ticket, anti-branding rules still apply of course.



        --- Guess says: ---
        2. "A proprietary product, even without a brand name label is still a unique object with an identity associated with it." - El wire, anyone? What's next, a cry to ban all widely used objects on playa because they're recognizeable even without labels?
        ------------------------

        Okay, perhaps I'm weak on this point. That weakness stems from a difficulty to discern the difference between items used for the purpose of survival, and art, and their separately branded identities which are irremovable from the product's presence. I'll give you points for spotting the hole in my thinking. Thanks.

        ---- Guess says: ----
        3. "I'm also concerned about the BMorg's track record of opening the door slightly only to keep opening the door wider and wider every year (ticket prices anybody?)" - If you'd used your Special Intelligent Boy Research Powers, you'd know that the ticket prices go up because the BLM fees and porta potty costs go up. It's not exactly hidden information. So sad... you're making me cry here.
        --------------------------
        It goes up for more reasons than that! I bet the BMorg wasn't staying in nice air conditioned bungalows, building giant bases for the man, and many of the other unnecessary costs that have driven up ticket prices. We're talking a lot more than BLM fees and infrastructure costs at this point being paid for by the tickets.

        -------- Guess says: --------
        4. "I shouldn't have to feel this way at Burning Man, hell, I pay to to goto Burning Man not to feel that way." - Sorry, I still don't see the connection between MUNI's barrage of clearly printed advertising covering every wall and Burning Man allowing non-branded free technology to be displayed, used, discussed, and then donated at the event. Please feel free to explain how they're connected in further detail.
        ----------------------------------

        You don't see how they are similar, I do though, and I'm sure other people do too. We disagree on this point, and that's okay. For me that statement is correct.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: John Law was right...

          Thu, June 28, 2007 - 11:27 AM
          I'm ending my above responses with a retraction of the $800,000 number. I misread a line in the Biz 2.0 article and thought the BMorg was charging $800,000 in fees, when in fact the line said the BMorg was BEING CHARGED $800,000 in fees.

          My apologies to the BMorg for my mistake.
          • Re: John Law was right...

            Thu, June 28, 2007 - 11:45 AM
            Thank you Moist. For the third time, these companies are NOT PAYING A FEE of any sort to participate. Nor are we paying them.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: John Law was right...

              Thu, June 28, 2007 - 11:46 AM
              I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. Even when it makes me look like an ass. Speaking of ass... who's attending Adoration?
            • Re: John Law was right...

              Thu, June 28, 2007 - 11:47 AM
              Chai, I answered you quite clearly about Current TV right here in the thread. If you want more information, why not go talk to Current? They are awesome folks. This thread is not about Current anyway and I'm really not up for having the media at Burning Man discussion again, as I think I've said my piece a million times on that.
  • Re: John Law was right...

    Thu, June 28, 2007 - 11:56 AM
    This is an interesting experiment....one I instinctively was repulsed by initially....but that happens a lot at Burning Man. First you go ..WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!?!! then you calm down, open another box of wine (or whatever) and then calmly, with time, while watching a green fandago float by (and decide to later think about what the fuck a green fandango is), decide, huh, interesting, no, that's actually quite cool....I think that's better...not the way I would have done it, but, you know, it's actually better.....

    THINK

    DON'T BE STUPID

    on with the dance.....


    P.S. No one's really addressing what John Law said and whether he's right or not....just thought I'd, um, say that...
  • Re: John Law was right...

    Thu, June 28, 2007 - 1:18 PM
    I see it as exchange of ideas. You may just learn something. Or not . ..just don't check out the green gadgets if you're offended. Spend more time selling coffee or something. If the cafe wasn't the slippery slope to veggie burrito stands then neither will this.

    The one bit I found disturbing about the article was that Mr. Harvey's bones are being picked over by predators and he's still breathing (camels by the carton).

    Meow!
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Thu, June 28, 2007 - 2:57 PM
      What I think this comes down to is what - exactly - Burning Man is and who exactly Burning Man belongs to - which does get a little toward John Law's point. And also - who has the right to determine what Burning Man is.

      Clearly, Burning Man, LLC - the physical thing - belongs to a handful of people in San Francisco and they have the right to exploit it. But - Burning Man the metaphysical thing belongs to a far larger group - that is, everyone who attends year after year - all of us who are "the community." Burning Man is a place - an event - but it's also very much an ideal and as such is it not a physical thing. And that's part of the problem - because as a physical thing it can change locations and it can change configurations and it can change leadeship and still remain "Burning Man" - but as a metaphysical thing, change has to come via a very different process.

      Part of the problem with this whole commerce thing is that within the metaphysical ideal of Burning Man - commerce does not exist. Whether you want to call it commerce or commodification or whatever - it doesn't matter what the so called "principals" are because Burning Man isn't a page on a web site or an LLC or any one person - it is - as Brian Doherty has called it - "an intentional community." It is what it is because we want it to be what it is - because we allow it - by participaing in it - to be what it is. It is what it is because we, as a group, share a set of ideals about what we want the experience of Burning Man to be or to include. If it changes - as it has over the years through a natural evolution - say the whole gift economy thing which happened organically and was not dictated from the top down (but was then co-opted by the top) - then it's an acceptable change and the community absorbs it. But if it's a top down change where change is dictated through a proclamation (dare I say, papal bull?) then will be much harder to accept within the community. There are going to be true believers and there are going to be protestants. But ultimately what will result is a ideal that is not what it was. What will result is something very different.

      That's why this commerce thing is such a touchy subject. It is a fundamental alteration of what Burning Man is in the hearts and minds of many, many people. It goes way beyond ticket prices, or police or kids or any other of the hot issues that have faced Burning Man over the years. It is - I think - a fundamental alteration of the metaphysical thing.

      One of the things I've always felt about Burning Man was that the LLC really are only the executors of it all - the facilitators. They have to be careful because without the LLC Burning Man could still very much exist, though most likely in a very different form, but without the Community, it's just a bunch of people sitting in the desert with an infrastructure and a permit. It's a strange relationship - but it is what it is. It is - after all, Burning Man.
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Thu, June 28, 2007 - 3:47 PM
        i wonder if the people who just show up on the playa, without paying attention to the forums and the magazine stories, if they will even realize corporate projects will be there. i wonder if they will think 'ooh cool' when they see this supposedly dance new tech then move on, blissfully unaware. sometimes i think we screw ourselves out of enjoying something by making mountains out of molehills. is this issue really as important in practice as it is in principle?
        • Re: John Law was right...

          Thu, June 28, 2007 - 5:18 PM
          I felt like that the first three or four year and most of the time still do Stacy. of course I don't pay for my ticket and most of my costs at the festival so I can't really feel like I'm get ripped off. but more and more I see mentions of burning man in other context and hear the people of the org speak whether it's in newspapers, magazine, at silly new age things, at parties and it freaks me out how what they say one thing on the site and what they do are two different things. also the way they avoid saying things or just being honest when there is no reason for them to not be. just weird.

          there are loads of people who burning man is core to thier beliefs and lives and to have them reduced to brand power to be marketed as suggested by Maid Marian is sad.
          • Re: John Law was right...

            Thu, June 28, 2007 - 5:47 PM
            i'd like to see an answer to turtles questions.

            in a nutshell, the reason that these companies are at burning man is to make money off of participants in the future. plain and simple.

            i work in the trade show industry folks so i'm kind of hip to what's happening here.

            my take on this is that there's going to be a watered down trade show exhibit hall on the playa.

            somebody correct me if i'm wrong, please.
            • Re: John Law was right...

              Thu, June 28, 2007 - 6:55 PM
              <<my take on this is that there's going to be a watered down trade show exhibit hall on the playa.>>

              From what I can tell, that's not really accurate...I'd say it's a whole new paradigm for trade shows. Because people who make and sell the product won't be there with their product. The product will be on the playa and used/demonstrated by OTHER people, presumably "burners" who are excited by the technology and are giving the ideas freely to the rest of us.

              Therefore it's different than a trade show OR an expo. BUT, IMO, it's still a way to sell products-- in this case, select Burner-chosen products. It's kind of like the latest craze in TV advertising: product placement. But it's P.C. product placement, according to the bmorg, important and exciting product placement-- and we're gonna love it.

              i'd still like my above questions answered!
            • Re: John Law was right...

              Thu, June 28, 2007 - 7:00 PM
              • Re: John Law was right...

                Thu, June 28, 2007 - 7:40 PM
                I feel as conflicted as most folks do on this thread. I don't want to see Burning Man commercialized, and I am worried that this kind of corporate involvement is the opening of a door that many of us would prefer to stay tightly shut. Yet I respect the attempt to make the outcome beneficial.

                I work for a large corporation, and I have made my peace with my decision to do so. I try to do good work, act ethically, and be generous even when I'm at work. I do some pro bono activities while I'm at work, with the full knowledge of my managers.

                To be honest, I must concede that the people who are going to be at the pavilion may also be attempting to be beneficial and ethical. It is, after all, people who are doing this, not some villians from an action movie.

                So, I'll visit the pavilion and make up my own mind. It's an experiment, and I feel that we should judge it by the results, not by the hype or the anti-hype.

                Marion Goodall was quoted as saying "to ignore the value of our brand, the buying power it has, is silly". The value of this particular "brand" is based in large part on the shared belief in certain principles, one of them being the non-commercial nature of the event. If these principles are diluted, the "brand" may become worthless. I hope that the LLC understands this fragility of the Burning Man "brand".
                • Re: John Law was right...

                  Thu, June 28, 2007 - 8:29 PM
                  I don't think this is really an issue of being anti-business or pro-business - hell, I'm as pro-business as the next person and I suspect far more pro-business than most of my fellow burners - what this is about is who holds - or who is responsible for - the intellectual property of Burning Man.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: John Law was right...

                    Thu, June 28, 2007 - 8:49 PM
                    When I say that these organizations will be treated the way we treat artists, I don't sit and itemize or debate how we support individual artist projects with tickets or electricity or access to heavy equipment, either, and I'm not about to do that here. I am not going to say that we won't do those things for some of these projects, and I'm sorry if there are folks who are offended by the fact that we do that, but that part of it is not new.

                    Let's be clear: yes, we did invite these people to come. Yes, we are supporting their presence and helping to make the pieces come to life. We are building the structure you'll see the stuff in, alongside and/or integrated with other works of art.

                    Prediction: I'm guessing in some cases you won't be able to tell whether a piece was by Jim Mason or Blue from Recycle Camp or the AEZ or a solar company or an inventor who has created a new power source that's being used to run a sound installation, without finding someone's computer so you can find it on an online map.


                    • Re: John Law was right...

                      Thu, June 28, 2007 - 8:57 PM
                      I should add the above that I can think of a couple of these projects in the pavilion that wouldn't need a ticket if it was offered 'cos they were already coming in the first place. I don't have such a hard time imagining that some of these participants might be doing what they're doing for reasons beyond financial gain. That's my point...and no, I have never once sat and discussed my friends at Burning Man as a "brand" with anyone in this office, because I've never thought of them that way - but I can imagine a dozen ways a business reporter might phrase a question to me get me to talk about our participants as such, no matter if it's ever occurred to me before or not. No disrespect to the writer intended, but I'm just saying.
                    • Re: John Law was right...

                      Thu, June 28, 2007 - 9:02 PM
                      thanks for answering that yes you are paying for companies to camp, present and use LLC money to exhibit thier product. I can tell it was hard for you to be accountable and not something you feel you need to be to the lowely attendees of burning man.
                      thanks again.
                      it's important to know what the members of the LLC think are the real values of burning man.
                      • Re: John Law was right...

                        Thu, June 28, 2007 - 9:15 PM
                        Nope, I didn't say "to exhibit their product". I see them sharing their ideas and inventions and creations and creativity and I think it's a valuable thing for those of us that get to see it, and I feel fortunate, as one of many people who are working on the contracts and agreements to make this all possible on BRC's terms, that folks in my community (some of the voices in this thread) trust me with that task. Those that don't, I hope we do you proud anyway.

                        It wasn't hard at all to "be accountable", but I do find it interesting that you'd make it personal and turn it into a jab at my character despite the fact that I answered your direct questions when you asked them. Nice job.

                        I'm not a member of the LLC, btw.

                        AG
                        • Re: John Law was right...

                          Fri, June 29, 2007 - 12:29 AM
                          andie you don't work for the LLC is that you are saying and you've never gotten a paycheck from them ever. forgive me then for that mistake all these years.
                          • Re: John Law was right...

                            Fri, June 29, 2007 - 4:41 AM
                            Turtle, I always thought you were an intelligent individual. However, when I read your question after Andie specifically wrote she is not a member of the LLC, I begin to wonder if you have difficulty understanding the written English language, made a mistake and asked a poorly thought out question or are just and angry person with an agenda. Which is it?
                            • Unsu...
                               

                              Re: John Law was right...

                              Fri, June 29, 2007 - 7:55 AM
                              isn't it fascinating how you can take a wild, radically unconventional template-breaker like burning man and watch it calcify into the same kind of fearful "let's not risk any changes!" attitude that has effectively killed every innovative impulse humanity has ever had?

                              if the bottom-line, foundational impulse to share and care underlies the exploration of new possibilties, then i think we can risk allowing business-based entities who are concerning themselves with a truly green ethos into the mix.....and see what happens.

                              i understand the concerns about tainting the event with outsider, corporate bias and profit-motive, but if we just redefine what "profit" means - to insist it include sustainability, health, fun, collaborative creativity - then *our* outsider values get INSIDE to very possibly redefine the entire system to the benefit of all....and that's the kind of party i want to be at!

                              and if it fails, hey - we are each responsible for pursuing our own visions anyway, are we not?
                            • Unsu...
                               

                              Re: John Law was right...

                              Fri, June 29, 2007 - 9:22 AM
                              _______:::::.... says: _______
                              Turtle, I always thought you were an intelligent individual. However, when I read your question after Andie specifically wrote she is not a member of the LLC, I begin to wonder if you have difficulty understanding the written English language, made a mistake and asked a poorly thought out question or are just and angry person with an agenda. Which is it?
                              _______________________

                              Okay, can we all stop the "you're obviously brain dead because you said X" stuff? We're all smart people here, except "Tantric" who is a dirty nasty stalker hippy.

                              As for Andie not being part of the LLC. Well yes, that is most definitely true! The LLC is owned by the shareholders. Andie may not be a share holder, but when I had brunch with her and Joe a couple years ago regarding the anti-rape group that was forming at the time (and evolved into the Bureau of Erotic Discourse) and she whipped out the company credit card to pay that was a pretty clear indicator to me that she was indeed employed by them.
                            • Re: John Law was right...

                              Fri, June 29, 2007 - 11:31 AM
                              actually I am not a native english speaker although I do speak five languages but I'm afraid not too many people on this board know bahasa malay or even dutch. yes I make typos on the internet on a burning man discussion board. oh the horrors.
                              as andie has clarified she does indeed work for the LLC and that is all I thought. As part of her job she represents them here. I'm sorry if it was not clear that I was directing my questions to her as a representative of a business although I did write earlier:
                              "I understand you do not speak for yourself and it is your job to protect your company but I fail to see how disclosing this information would harm your company?"

                              but thanks you, a total stranger for questioning my intelligence and reasons. actually all I wanted was couple answers as to what money the LLC was spending on the private companies they have invited to display thier products. now I have that info. I'm done.
                        • Re: John Law was right...

                          Fri, June 29, 2007 - 11:37 AM
                          andie in no way was I trying to make this a personal attack on you and sorry if you felt that way. I was speaking to you as the media rep for burning man on this board and when using "you" it was meant to be the LLC as business.

                          as I said in an earlier post"I understand you do not speak for yourself and it is your job to protect your company but I fail to see how disclosing this information would harm your company?" perhaps you missed that?

                          thanks for clarify that you are indeed employed by Burning man LLC. I didn't not think you had ownership merely that you represent the views and wishes of those that do.
                        • Re: John Law was right...

                          Sun, July 8, 2007 - 8:54 PM
                          Even by the org's own words of it being an EXPO, it is indirectly funding companies to "exhibit their product".

                          Semantic rules applied, language, etc. Language and characterizations of what is being done matters, no doubt. Tom and you have both spoken about those things in this thread.

                          When the language is the equivalent of freakin double speak.....it matters more.
                      • Re: John Law was right...

                        Thu, June 28, 2007 - 9:18 PM
                        <<Let's be clear: yes, we did invite these people to come.>>

                        Why? I would really like to understand why the BMorg thought it important to invite businesses to come. Why did people think it necessary to go outside of the 40,000 people with who are already attending with all their skills, knowledge and gifts? That's what I want to know: why????
                        • Re: John Law was right...

                          Thu, June 28, 2007 - 9:31 PM
                          By way of an answer, Neon, an excerpt from an article from the newsletter last year: "As Burning Man’s culture begins to move out into the world at large, how can it sustain itself? Is it enough to simply attend regional gatherings that exist apart from that world, as does Black Rock City, or is it possible to radically reinsert the core values of our culture into what is called the default world? What is the relationship between commerce and community?"

                          a full text to the piece, which says more than I possibly could in a Tribe post: www.burningman.com/preparat...sum1.html read "Commerce and Community"

                          Also...because the theme asks us to explore man's relationship to nature, and these kinds of innovations contemplate those very questions and may offer us other ways to look at our lives.
                          • Re: John Law was right...

                            Thu, June 28, 2007 - 9:38 PM
                            I'm curious about something. Did, at any point during this decision making process, it occur to anyone making the decision to invite companies to display their products, that a very large number of people might be upset about it?
                            • Of course!

                              Thu, June 28, 2007 - 9:58 PM
                              Hell, like I said, *I* was pissed, my friend... until I came to understand how it might work and started to believe it could be leveraged to help infect the outside world with a little of *us* (instead of vice versa).

                              To be honest, I never expected people to embrace the theme as much as they have in general. I loved it, but I didn't know so many others would. I think it's gonna be a stellar and impressive and educational year.
                              • Re: Of course!

                                Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:12 PM

                                >>it could be leveraged to help infect the outside world with a little of *us* (instead of vice versa).

                                Agreed. That is part of what I was thinking when I said:
                                "We many come to appreciate that some corporations share burner attitudes and values,"

                                Although nay sayers are right to worry, it is also true that If corporate entities attend the event on our terms and contribute to the community then we all gain. We have heard many stories about corporate culture being changed as a result of workers and executives attending the event.
                                • Re: Of course!

                                  Thu, June 28, 2007 - 10:16 PM
                                  and I quoted my own typo. Geez! That should say "may" not "many"
                                  • Re: Of course!

                                    Fri, June 29, 2007 - 3:04 AM
                                    Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions Andie.

                                    I know you think that this has nothing to do with the media, to me it's all the same thing, it's bringing comodification to the playa, and it's selling our images to Madison Avenue.

                                    You say that these vendors aren't paying to be there (and I take you at your word). But when you say that we might mistake them for Jim Mason or the folks at AEZ, then it begs the question, why invite them at all? why not feature Jim Mason and AEZ in the first place?

                                    It's leading us down a slippery slope, not just in the sense that it's threatening to commodify the event, but also in the sense that Bmorg is now beginning to try to tell us how to think.

                                    If I could offer one bit of advice to take to the next board meeting it'd be this:

                                    Go back to making the event not mean anything. Keep doing the great job you've guys have always done with building the trash fence, organizing the JOTS, and dealing the mountains of red tape to make the event happen. You guys do that stuff really, really well.
                                    • Who is the "them" and why are "they" evil?

                                      Fri, June 29, 2007 - 11:22 AM
                                      Who is this "them" that we invited?

                                      What if this "them" was a super cool art collective that we had heard about from Tibet who happened to figure out a way to power their installations with playa dust? Would you be so angry if the LLC heard about them and supported their presence on the playa?

                                      What if that art collective happened to actually be incorporated in Tibet and actually tried to make a living with their art by charging for it (although it would be offered for free at the event).

                                      Corporations are just groups of people working towards a goal. Some of them suck (probably most of them). Some don't. Hopefully the ones that are coming don't suck.

                                      Wait and see. Open minds and all that stuff.
                    • Re: John Law was right...

                      Sun, July 8, 2007 - 5:32 PM
                      Yeah but you'll know if you ask who they are, how they did whatever innovation, and whether or not they were "invited" as a corporation. (viral marketing....promotion.....transaction....advertisement.....endorsement by the corp.) That's the hang up I have.

                      There's no contract that will prevent that but it's a wait and see thing there. I'm interested in new tech, especially more green tech. It's possible that this decision by BMORG is ballsy given the potential overall damage to the event. (It's probably gonna be fine) BUT if Marian is right that the LLC is thriving and would go on well after Harvey, what that event is should consider what the active participants care about ya know.

                      Can understand how new innovation could be seen as art Andie! Actually, depending on the art, it has far better default uses since lots of art at BM goes poof after that week and technology could be used by all who can afford/create for a long time to come....... But it feels like a scheme. Far too convenient with the theme. Far too distant in its implementation. Far too corporate in nature. Far too "spin" in delivery. I live in DC, I know spin when I see it and I think lots of other naysayers on here do too. Too trade show-like. The post announcing it to the community (about the invite) was gone in a couple of days. Secrecy is never a good thing with stuff like this ;-)

                      I'm sure you thought the same things by the posts on your initial reactions to the ideas. It's made as center to the man. Not a separate area to avoid (ie - TRAFFIC for the companies) All that speaks to it being about money, commerce, commodification. Circumstantial - yeah. But not made up out of nothing. It's how it seems. If it quacks....probably a duck.

                      I think I read that you are helping with contracts. If drafting them or otherwise Please, pass along the idea to release a separate contract (taking out the corp's names and actual projects) while making these. Before the event.

                      That alone would make my skin crawl LESS. I'm not really offended. I would simply not like to waste 2k on a friggin trade show.
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Thu, July 12, 2007 - 9:00 AM
        Pulpracer-

        Very good distinction between the "physical" Burning Man and the metaphysical. I think we all realize that whatever his/their original or subsequent intentions, Larry and the Bmorg have created something that is now a year-round challenge (and business) to manage at the physical level, but far, far beyond their powers to control at that metaphysical level.

        But I don't think your statement that "Part of the problem with this whole commerce thing is that within the metaphysical idea of Burning Man- commerce does not exist" is correct.

        I think you're more correct about this regarding the "physical" level. I think we are all struggling with how much commerce should exist at Burning Man, and what are the boundaries on that commerce. Those boundaries are different with different individuals (like in any relationship), and the struggle is to find the group consensus on that. Which is pretty much what the discusion on this thread is all about.

        But on the metaphysical level, I think your statement is incorrect. At that point, I think "Burning Man", or "being a Burner" is hugely about commerce. For good or ill. It can be all about wasteful consumption in the pursuit of looking hip while you're doing something hip, or it can be about thinking more carefully about your consumption in the context of that event. I think for many people, it's also an examination of "money energy" vs "time & effort" energy-- what you buy vs. challenging yourself to make it yourself (e.g., DIY costumes, art cars, fuckedup bikes, whatever, and leaving aside the reality that for most people, "money energy" comes from previous investments of "time & effort" energy). And I think for many people it is also about a desire to support our community (give daBomb a drink!!) by buying from Burners.

        But what's interesting (and not saying that it's a bad thing) is that most people seem to be the touchiest about their personal boundaries regarding commerce at that BMOrg-controlled "physical Burning Man" level, and I think that the interesting question is why that is.
        • Re: John Law was right...

          Thu, July 12, 2007 - 9:51 AM
          //But what's interesting (and not saying that it's a bad thing) is that most people seem to be the touchiest about their personal boundaries regarding commerce at that BMOrg-controlled "physical Burning Man" level, and I think that the interesting question is why that is.//

          WHY??!! My God man that opens up a dangerous path into the Burnie psyche.

          OK, I'll take a shot.

          We like a game. Burning Man is itself a game. I mean we can't mistake it for "real" life (i.e. the default world) There are rules (termed "pricipals"), objectives (like radical self expression and survival), participants (preferably wearing pants), victories (making it back to camp for dinner, master-debating), defeats (not seeing all the stuff you wanted, etc.). And even if it is life, life is a game; and it too has rules (and not just those created by Milton Bradley). And if life isn't a game . .. that's your opinion and there's probably a lot of other things we disagree about (which I would happily explore in a game of master-debating).

          So buying the premise that it's a game with rules, we also like to win. We also can't stand to see others cheat. We all have cheated at games (no drugs for US citizens, no speeding, STOP, Speed Limit 5MPH, etc.) and when we see someone cheating in a way that either disadvantages us (or there is no sharing) in any way there is this deep visceral reaction for those who are playing by the rules. I mean why is that muthafugger allowed to break rules I can't. He can't. F him. I hope he gets busted selling weed. Now maybe if he would just share (totally within the rules) than that's fine.

          And why I think the cafe gets a pass - even though it is vending which is against the rules, it disadvantages noone in particular because it is built right into the playing field.
          • Re: John Law was right...

            Thu, July 12, 2007 - 10:36 AM
            For them that's interested, I wrote an essay with some thoughts on the Business 2.0-launched controversy:
            www.reason.com/news/show/121343.html

            (I'm a 12-time Burning Man attendee and wrote a book about it, THIS IS BURNING MAN....)

            Brian Doherty
            • Re: John Law was right...

              Thu, July 12, 2007 - 10:45 AM
              Hi Brian!

              You said // But Burning Man is rife with the products of corporations, and always has been. And has always had to be. //

              My first year at BM I was a total newb. I was warned not to accept drinks from strangers, for fear of getting dosed.

              I went out to check the Man™ and some guy approached me, offering me a free martini. I declined. But he insisted, saying I could watch him open a sealed single serving of vodka. He proceeded to open his cooler and it was full of a very expensive name brand vodka that was just hitting the U.S. market.

              "Do you work for them?" I asked. And he said "Yeah. I love my job!" and he proceeded to mix me a very delicious cocktail.

              I should also add that two energy drink products (one that is the leader in this field) has given me cases of free product to "give-away" at Burning Man. One of them gave cases and cases and cases to theme camps, theme camps, theme camps. It's a fucking GIFT!!!

              So...why would the invited BMorg guests be asked to cloak their logos? It's happening already and, like you said, it's always been.

              Let's get real.
  • Re: John Law was right...

    Fri, June 29, 2007 - 9:53 AM
    i dont recall seeing people protesting the ice cream that ben cohen gave away last year!
    so why cant someone else come in and provide the community with something that has the possability of doing some good.
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Fri, June 29, 2007 - 11:38 AM
      Maybe it was because they weren't invited to be there by the LLC, they didn't have a shade structure built for them by DPW and the LLC wasn't talking about it in Business 2.0 magazine?
  • Re: John Law was right...

    Fri, June 29, 2007 - 11:42 AM
    It makes me think of how I'd feel if I was planning a party at my house with a bunch of friends, and then one of those friends says, "Hey I invited my other friend to come. They do Tupperware sales at parties and they're going to do a little pitch for us...but you don't have to buy anything."
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Fri, June 29, 2007 - 11:46 AM
      "Oh, and their Tupperware is really fantastic! It's not like the old Tupperware--it's biodegradable!"
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Fri, June 29, 2007 - 12:12 PM
        Or, more accurately:

        I'm having a pot luck. And you're invited. And I happened to invite a friend. He works for Tupperware. And he's going to bring his dish in a really cool Tupperware container that you might want to check out, but he's not really allowed to talk about it unless you bring it up.

        AND THERE ARE 40 FUCKING THOUSAND OTHER PEOPLE TO TALK TO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO TALK TO HIM.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: John Law was right...

          Fri, June 29, 2007 - 12:16 PM
          or, even more accurately,

          some old friends are having a pot luck. everyone's invited! so long as certain basic ground rules are followed. aside from that, you can create whatever experience you want!
          • Re: John Law was right...

            Fri, June 29, 2007 - 12:22 PM
            OR.....

            "Here's the value proposition: 40,000 of the smartest, most socially networked content-generating people on the planet, whose tolerance for B.S. is negative point-five, all checking out your product."

            - Tom Price, Environmental Manager for Burning Man 2007
            • Re: John Law was right...

              Fri, June 29, 2007 - 1:06 PM
              I think that's what gets me more than anything. A direct quote from a Borg staffer that brings about the realization that we are a target market demographic to the organization that we believed we were a part of. I feel used and betrayed. I will still go, and I will still love Burningman. But it makes me feel less like it's 'my' event, and more like a consumer. Even though the green-ware being exhibited is a good thing, and we will likely benefit from being exposed to it, and big steps were taken to remove the marketing pitch, it doesn't change the fact that it reeks of hypocrisy. I'd like to think we could have figured out other ways to increase our Green IQ on the playa without having to blur the line of one of our core principles so dramatically.

              So I'm curious... are we risking compromising the non-commodification principle because we feel the Green theme is so important that we're willing to walk that fine blurry line? Is this a one time thing? Or will next years theme bring with it benevolent ideals that justify having some kind of vendor representation on the playa?
              • Re: John Law was right...

                Fri, June 29, 2007 - 1:18 PM
                "So I'm curious... are we risking compromising the non-commodification principle because we feel the Green theme is so important that we're willing to walk that fine blurry line? Is this a one time thing? Or will next years theme bring with it benevolent ideals that justify having some kind of vendor representation on the playa?"

                I'm curious too.
                Yes, but maybe if we do it right it's not a risk at all.
                I don't know, but it would be stupid, disingenuous, and really insane to not continue to embrace the greenest ideals possible as an organization, that's for sure. And doing that has been part of our mission since before the Green Man.
                I don't know, but again, this is not about vending.

                Confession: I may just be secretly hoping next year's theme is "Hey, Lima Beans R Teh Awesome, Ain't They?" or "Rock and Roll on Mars" or "Pants!" so I can spend the summer hanging out with my new baby and not freaking out trying to quietly infect the world from the middle of the Black Rock Desert, but I kinda doubt that's going to happen. ;) Burning Man has moved out of the desert and into the real world, in more ways than one.

                At any rate just because we do this once, no, that does not mean it has to be repeated in future years. We shall see. Let's see how it goes.
                • Re: John Law was right...

                  Fri, June 29, 2007 - 1:28 PM
                  Andie, you can spin this any way you want, but test marketing the alliance of Burning Man with major corporations and captains of industry to viral market to the Community (drink!) is disgusting. It saddens me to no end.

                  As for your comment about the event moving into the real world: Burning Man is a destiny vacation. A vacation! I come to Burning Man to escape the world for a week. If I really wanted to go the real world and make a difference, I'd be in Darfour, not Black Rock City.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: John Law was right...

                    Fri, June 29, 2007 - 1:57 PM
                    Bomb, you just don't "Get it", this is PHASE FOUR of the great Burning Man "Plan"


                    "Phase Four is turning those people into an Internet-connected network for social and ultimately political change, in Harvey's vision."

                    "I think leaders will rise up in these (Burning Man) groups and a new kind of value-based politics - drawing renewal from rituals - will emerge. Then you have a rebirth of democracy, but a different kind of democracy."

                    from: www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/s...0848.html
            • The next line...

              Fri, June 29, 2007 - 5:27 PM
              Chai-

              Thanks for posting this, it gives me a chance to respond. Someone on the Burning Man staff email list asked about that yesterday, and so I'll just repost the same thing here:

              >>>>
              You're absolutely right, and I cringed when I saw that. Sure, I wish he had printed the next line I said " but of course, there's no branding of any kind allowed," so it's "marketing" of ideas, not products, that we're interested in"

              But that wouldn't move the units, would it?

              As a staff person entrusted to speak to the media on certain issues, and former journalist who should know better, I take full responsibility for what I said in print, and so I apologize for saying something that, even if taken out of context, makes you or anyone else uncomfortable. And thanks for saying so, I appreciate the feedback.
              >>>>

              This second guessing and doubting about what Burning Man is up to is appropriate, and if the situation were reversed, I'd likely be doing the same. I can say all day long "we're not selling out, there will be no commodification of Burning Man." Some people will believe me, some not, some will sit on the fence.

              Regardless, as someone who has the very good fortune of working with Burning Man as a job, even if a temporary one, I bear the responsibility to be accountable to you, the community of people who make the event and year round community possible. So, if anyone wants to discuss this with me in person, starting with you, Chai, here's my phone number: 801-712-5371.
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: The next line...

                Sat, June 30, 2007 - 12:01 AM
                I'm not upset about the things I might learn, I fear the iinsertion of "real world" problems into this magical place where the "real world's" problems are forgotten for a few days and the "possible world" of human creativity replaces it.
        • Re: John Law was right...

          Tue, July 17, 2007 - 1:43 PM
          <quote>I'm having a pot luck. And you're invited. And I happened to invite a friend. He works for Tupperware. And he's going to bring his dish in a really cool Tupperware container that you might want to check out, but he's not really allowed to talk about it unless you bring it up. </quote>

          You haven't mentioned that they'd be leaving their tupperware behind for you... and also that even though it's YOUR potluck, you are counting your friends to wash the dishes afterwards as a favor to you.
          • Re: John Law was right...

            Tue, July 17, 2007 - 6:43 PM
            You guys sure like to beat a dead horse that's for sure. I think John Taylor has it right (in his Burncast interview) that this is an experiment worth doing, that NO ONE knows how it will ultimately come out, and that everyone is reading his Business 2.0 article with their own biases.

            I think the larger debate you all are dancing around is the future of Burning Man. It is the common theme that runs through all these debates (the Carnival burner cruise, Borg2, etc.). We all like to think that we each can steer the future of this whole endeavor but in reality it is only the few BRC LLC board members who have that power. Burners only have the power to not get involved, while a few of us have become Regional Contacts and have built our own communities and events (largely free of SF remote control). While I believe the board's intentions are pure I also believe that they make life harder for themselves and everybody else by not communicating effectively.

            Corporations at Burning Man, that gets a big yawn in my book. There is a difference between commerce and commercialization, remember the gift economy is a form of commerce.

            Who is not afraid of the future of Burning Man? That is what this is all about, compounded by miscommunication and various people pushing personal agendas. Burning Man will not be undone by this one "green corporate pavilion", that is a bit much. Believe me there are bigger idealogical struggles ahead of us, this is but a skirmish.

            THAT Andi
            Hawaii cRC
            • Re: John Law was right...

              Wed, July 18, 2007 - 1:21 AM
              Hi Andi...

              // (the Carnival burner cruise) //

              Let me tell you about the Carnival Cruise: that was a fiasco! Imagine if you were putting on your regional event, but got a JRS in your in-box touting some inter-island cruise with no mention of yours. It was not pretty and a lot of feelings were hurt..

              Below is a cut and paste of my blog from that time:


              Friday, October 14, 2005
              Jack Rabbit Speaks With A Forked Tongue

              The most recent edition of Jack Rabbit Speaks features an announcement about the upcoming Xingolati cruise that sounds distinctly like a commercial. In one sentence I read plugs for four different for-profit business ventures.

              We believed that BMorg was trying to support regionals, not snub them in favor of Carnival Cruise event, which costs in excess of $500. In promoting the cruise, no mention of the Los Angeles Decompression was mentioned which takes place tomorrow, October 15th.

              The JRS barely mentions the Los Angeles Decom in any of their publications or email newsletters. In fact it was only mentioned yesterday as an oversight if you can't go on a cruise.

              "Okay, if you can't make the cruise, I KNOW it's last minute, but I swear if it weren't my down time I'd have let you know sooner. And, I know they'll do it again;I have this feeling it'll be a big success."

              This is out of the Jack Rabbit speaks newsletter.

              The cruise in question is a highly commercial cruise featuring artists, Burning Man-types, bands (including Mutaytor) and art. But it also has a lot of corporate sponsorship, commercial and monetary goals and the spirit of Burning Man (Leave no trace, decommodification,etc.) are not a part of the cruise. It is a corporate for profit event.

              Just today, Maid Marian posted a follow up to that edition of Jack Rabbit Speaks due in part to a huge response to it. In it she states: "[There] is no sellout here. I appreciate the passion and concern of everyone who I've heard from today. I'm not promoting that un-named cruise line [um...that's a lie because she did]....There's also no "sell out" going on with regard to any television shows, movies or other media outlets."

              Well, Maid Marian is mistaken because the Jack Rabbit Speaks *is* the official Burning Man news outlet, and it *was* being used to promote a corporate-for-profit venture and looking to monetarily benefit from plugging several commercial ventures. And Maid Marian herself wrote that copy! C-a-r-n-i-v-a-l C-r-u-i-s-e does not spell "unnamed", sorry Marian.

              Why is the (so called) official mailing list of Burning Man being used to promote For-Profit products and services of other companies? //
              • Re: John Law was right...

                Wed, July 18, 2007 - 4:19 AM
                DaBomb:
                > Just today, Maid Marian posted a follow up to that edition of Jack Rabbit Speaks due in part to a huge response to it. In it she states: "[There] is no sellout here. I appreciate the passion and concern of everyone who I've heard from today. I'm not promoting that un-named cruise line [um...that's a lie because she did]..

                Here is the text from the mailing list:

                "Carnival Cruise Lines will transform their fun ship Paradise into the hottest festival on the high seas! Making its way from Long Beach, CA to Baja, Mexico and back, Xingolati, the Groove Cruise of the Pacific, is California's luxury cruise experience with an all star concert lineup not to be missed! Sip mojitos poolside and reminisce about this year's burn .... Book now and get $500 off your room."

                If that's not a promotion, I cannot imagine what is.

                It certainly seems like Marian is lying to us.

                So, tying into the other thread, where is the accountability?
                • Re: John Law was right...

                  Wed, July 18, 2007 - 8:03 AM
                  I'm confused. Did this cruise actually happen?

                  Are we talking about something in 2005?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: John Law was right...

                    Wed, July 18, 2007 - 9:03 AM
                    Yes, something that happened in 2005 that was a benefit for BRAF that we were notified about... Marian grabbed the info to post a quickie JRS (hers are usually just rapid fire, mine usually are the ones with everyone's posts in them, and I hadn't done one that week) without doing a full JRS with all the other events that week in it, and quite accidentally snubbed the Decom that weekend in the process.

                    And apologized and discussed it at length with the affected folks afterward, including you, Bomb. I think dredging it up now after long apoligies had been issued and all the OTHER support for LA regional events that's happened since is a really low blow. We messed up and we said so, and at this point I'm not sure you don't just ascribe incredibly evil motives to every move the organization makes, and it's making me wonder why I would spend so much time to talk things out with you here, or privately, or on your BURNcast (all of which I've done) if you're just going to pull it out in a couple of years and use it as evidence that I'm evil.

                    I am starting to wonder if I should organize a personal tour of every camp in BRC this year and check for corporate logos on your tents and cars and beer cans, to make sure nobody's done any business with any evil corporations as a means to get to Burning Man.

                    Maybe we all need a sermon from Reverend Billy.
                    • Re: John Law was right...

                      Wed, July 18, 2007 - 9:05 AM
                      ...I should say, "Unless I'm mistaken..." because it was indeed 2 years ago and I believe you were part of the discussions after that that talked out how that happened and apologized for it. If not, please accept my apology, but I believe we talked about it directly with you in addition to the regionals.
              • Re: John Law was right...

                Wed, July 18, 2007 - 9:07 AM
                asked and answered.....

                first, here is the exact posting for the cruise in question from the 10/13/05 (yes, that is 2005) JRS

                <snip>
                ????????????

                GO ON A CRUISE!

                Yup, sorry for the late notice, but I was in Gerlach with the DPW crew as we finished pulling the last fence stake from the ground and picked up some very cool ground scores. MAN, what's with you all throwing away wedding rings? Playa restoration rocked, as did San Francisco Decompression. Last of my house-guests left on Tuesday morning, what fun.

                Anyway, book on the cruise this weekend from San Diego, and $150 will be donated for each room booked to the Black Rock Arts Foundation. HEY, have fun, and help BRAF. InTicketing has been Burning Man's online ticketing vendor since 2002. I remember visiting them when they were in a garage. They were our first "vendor" to give back to the community with a donation to the Black Rock Arts Foundation. More are doing so. This event that they're throwing in southern California should be off the hook, and I know of some very cool people partying and playing at/with it. So, hope you all can make it.

                From InTicketing! :::

                $150 donation to the Black Rock Arts Foundation in your honor when you join Xingolati! Carnival Cruise Lines will transform their fun ship Paradise into the hottest festival on the high seas! Making its way from Long Beach, CA to Baja, Mexico and back, Xingolati, the Groove Cruise of the Pacific, is California's luxury cruise experience with an all star concert lineup not to be missed! Sip mojitos poolside and reminisce about this year's burn while you enjoy featured performances by The Flaming Lips, G. Love, Slightly Stoopid, Stephen Perkins of Jane's addiction, Medeski Martin Wood, DJ Logic, Delta Nove, Lorin, the Mutaytor, Particle, DJ Laird, Hamsa Lila, Mystic Family Circus, Lowpro Lounge, DJ Motion Potion, Yard Dogís Traveling Road Show, Vau de Vire Society and many others! Rituals and roaming performers, goddess sun deck, hookah den, late nite disco, 6 venues, multiple pools and hot tubs, gourmet and casual dining, 150 ft water slide, yoga and more!!! Everything is included in your ticket except alcohol & spa treatments. This is a participitary theatrical event so grab your playa gear and get onboard!

                Reserve your spot with the code "BRAF" and Black Rock City's own In Ticketing will donate $150 to BRAF in your honor. Book now and get $500 off your room.

                To make your reservation, go to www.xingolati.com or call In Ticketing at 415-256-8499. Be sure to use the discount code "BRAF" when placing your reservation for the $150 off and $150 donation to BRAF.

                ???????????????
                </snip>

                And now, the mention of the LA Decompression from the same JRS

                <snip>
                ???????????????
                LOS ANGELES DECOMPRESSION?

                Okay, if you can't make the cruise, I KNOW it's last minute, but I swear if it weren't my down time I'd have let you know sooner. And, I know they'll do it again…I have this feeling it'll be a big success.

                LA Decompression:

                www.la-burningman.com/
                October 15 noon-midnight
                Steet Faire!

                Some of the Decompression groups make a donation to the Black Rock Arts Foundation. I know San Diego is planning to. So, check out your local Decompression. <regionals.burningman.com>

                ??????????????????
                </snip>

                and FINALLY, Maid Marian's apology and comments


                JRS: Vol#10:5:10.14.05

                WOW, seems my JRS yesterday caused quite a stir for some. (btw: unsub info at the very bottom)


                BELOW you'll find a response to Los Angels, and a response to the regionals, and a response in general to a few emails I received. Those not caught in the stir might want to delete. Those interested in drama, read between the lines of my answers to understand what I've been pounded with today....And, this SATURDAY, OCT 15th SF-Bay Area people can enjoy a Burner-produced event that's NOT giving any more to BRAF, but who does support artists..and they're good peeps. Attend an event in Oakland at the NIMBY warehouse (full info below) url: www.nimbyspace.org>.


                \<>/-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\<>/


                FIRST: to Los Angeles Burning Man community: www.la-burningman.com (and further response below event info)

                Those wishing to rock with the folks in sunny Southern California this Saturday, Oct 15th....HERE"S your info:

                HEY EVERYONE go have fun in Los Angeles. I KNOW this will be a great time, SF Decompression was. And, LA is likely to be even more off the hook. AND MANY thanks for the donation BRAF, thanks for your hard work...every single person on the planning committee including TWAN and Mark Bava. I don't know the other names. Sorry. Street Fairs are an absolute BITCH to produce and I respect anyone and everyone taking the time, energy and sweat to make it happen.

                ** 3RD ANNUAL L.A. BURNING MAN DECOMPRESSION STREET FAIRE!! **

                The Los Angeles Burning Man Decompression Street Faire is upon us!

                Mark your calendars

                SATURDAY OCTOBER 15TH

                From 12:00 noon until 12:00 midnight

                $10. w/ Playa Wear or Playa Dust
                $15. without

                This is the 3rd annual L.A. Decom, taking place at the same location as the last two fabulous Decoms, in downtown L.A. in the Artists District. Three city blocks of Playa Pavement all to ourselves (and anyone else who might want a taste of what we're about)!

                The main gate will be located in front of Little Pedro's Blue Bongo Cafe, which is located at:

                901 E. 1st Street
                Los Angeles, CA 90012-4007

                The event continues down the block from there to Santa Fe Street, then one block to the left to Banning Street as well as one long block to the right under the bridge down to 2nd Street. That's a lot of street space to participate in the ways we like to.

                Like Burning Man in the desert, nothing happens unless we all come together and actively participate. So, as in years past, we need you to bring your art, theme camps, costumes, mutant vehicles, fire performance, music, personality and lightness of being in order to create the Playa on the Pavement that we know is all too do-able!

                In order to be proactive and participate and to contribute your passions, skills, and talents, please send your requests and any questions or comments to the appropriate email address below. One way or the other, you will be taken care of.

                * Performance
                Wolfie: perform@la-burning

                * Art
                Athena and Dale: art@la-burning

                * Volunteer
                Paynie & Commander Dazzel: volunteer@la-burning

                * Greeter
                Paynie & Commander Dazzel: greeters@la-burning

                * Theme Camps
                Athena and Dale: camps@la-burning


                Very much looking forward to playing thusly with you all once again. If Burning Man 2005 was any indication of what to expect, I have a tingling sensation telling me that we're about to outdo ourselves yet again. I love it when we blow our own minds, not to mention the minds of the unsuspecting strangers who might wander into our little universe...


                ~ Mark Bava

                \<>/-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\<>/


                MORE response to LA Burning Man Community:

                I'm sorry I didn't post your LA Decompression FIRST in my JRS yesterday. The nature of that particular JRS was to be about the Black Rock Arts Foundation. I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I didn't know that LA was also donating 15% to BRAF, until Paul C. called me at 1 pm today. Had I been informed of that fact I'm certain I would have found a different way to post the JRS particularly since the cruise was leaving in 24 hours anyway and and it wasn't very likely anyone would be able to go at such short notice. The point I was trying to make was that someone in our community was looking to give back to the community at a fairly generous level, and to make a point as to what the Project and BRAF were doing now that the desert event is finished.

                And, I only posted the LA Decompression URL and basic information as that's all I had in my personal email inbox.

                I didn't see Mark Bava's email of Sept. 27th sent to jackrabbitspeaks@ because I typically post my own JRSs from information I have in my head or what's been sent to me directly. I've had the cruise info for nearly as long in my own in box. I've been hoping to post it but didn't have a chance. When I looked on the calendar to see when it was happening it became obvious it was the same weekend as LA Decompression. This was oh, about 1 day before I posted the information. It seemed impossible that there would be a "real" conflict at such a late date.

                Please accept my apology. I had a specific mission and didn't intend for hard working LA-Decom workers to believe I was snubbing them.

                -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

                Everyone else that asked about that last JRS.......


                1) I'm sorry I posted the cruise information so late in the game. If you all think you have a reentry process, think about us here at SF-HQ. I was in Gerlach until October 6th. I had people in my house until October 11th. I do the best I can to get information out there. I'm sure they'll do the cruise again, AND it DID conflict with LA Decompression. And to the person who asked me to post something like that 6 months in advance I can assure you I had that info for less than a month. I'd have posted it in my first JRS of the new season/year if I'd had it at that time (and with proper context too).


                2) To the Regionals on the regional-list@ who seem to have a lot to say about this one. I'm sorry the post was "fuzzy" I did use <quote> and <end quote> to indicate what verbiage was not mine, and was from InTicketing. The cruise is NOT a Burning Man "sanctioned" event, it's not owned by Burning Man and the logo is not being used to promote it,, it's not produced by Burning Man, Burning Man is assuming no liability for the event, nor are we telling you it's a safe boat that won't sink, AND Burning Man is not receiving any proceeds from the event what so ever. Not even a free ticket to watch the boat pull away.


                3) It is TRUE I was more than motivated to post the information because they were donating some money to BRAF. And, I'm afraid you'll see more cross over between BRAF and the Project in the years to come. It's a no-brainer. BRAF was created to perpetuate interactive art and community. The JRS is a vehicle for communication about the Burning Man culture. BRAF is tasked with keeping the Burning Man culture alive.


                4) I am thinking about adding new "rabbits" to the JRS posting process. I'm considering the concept that some "voices" would have regional event information, some voices would have resources/businesses information, some would have BRAF information, some would have general information, and mine might tell stories that incorporate all of the above. I've not figured it out yet. And, I want to make the JRS a useful tool. If anyone has ideas on how to structure the JRS so that the information is most valuable and read, please feel free to send us an email to: jackrabbitspeaks@ and put: JRS SUGGESTIONS in the subject line. There are over 30,000 people on this list, and hitting reply with the BManUpdate header isn't the fastest way to receive a response from us. Subject lines are most helpful.


                5) To those that don't see how the things I post in a JRS all relate to one another: My personal preferred JRS style is to not just post a straight forward list of this or that. The JRS was started by me 10 seasons ago. I prefer to tell stories and give context to the information. I have found it to be the more effective and enjoyable way for me to communicate. I'm more than bored with the variety of newsletters I'm on that have no personality or "voice". This last JRS was NOT about cruises, decompressions or southern california. It was about the Black Rock Arts Foundation. I just thought it was fun to get your attention by saying "What are you doing this weekend?"


                6) Giving me shit, and tossing a bunch of tone at me is hardly the way to endear yourself to me. Thoughtful emails are more likely to receive thoughtful replies....when my bandwidth provides for such time.


                7) Lastly, there is no sellout here. I appreciate the passion and concern of everyone who I've heard from today. I'm not promoting that un-named cruise line, however I would encourage anyone to use our ticketing outlet as they've been very good to us and they are smart, talented Burners dedicated to the Burning Man ethic. They were Burners before they were our ticketing outlet. I think it's helpful to inform JRS readers as to which businesses are Burner-owned and burner friendly. I've done that for years, and will continue to do that. There's also no "sell out" going on with regard to any television shows, movies or other media outlets. The media process we've had in place for years is strengthened and tightened each year.


                8) My mission, and that of most of my compatriots here with the Burning Man Project is to continue to change lives by spreading the Burning Man culture throughout the world. The Black Rock Arts Foundation and the Burning Man Regional Network are the entities in play to help make that happen. Please participate.

                \<>/-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\<>/


                ALSO, re: a geographically challenged rabbit who's not spent much time south of Monterey, California has been corrected on the location for the departure of the cruise. Though I guess this is moot now:

                <quote>

                The cruise doesn't leave from San Diego. It leaves from Long Beach. Long
                Beach is not, nor has ever been, San Diego, nor a suburb thereof. It is in
                fact closer to Los Angeles (next to the port of LA, actually), and a large
                expanse of the entirety of Orange County (2+ hours of driving time) sits
                between Long Beach and San Diego.

                Maybe it doesn't mean squat to most JRS readers, but I for one was very
                confused and thought there two entirely different cruises taking place this
                weekend: the Xingolati one I was aware of leaving from Long beach, and now
                some new and different one leaving from San Diego.

                <end quote>



                \<>/-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\<>/


                NIMBY presents CIRCUS

                Sat, Oct 15 * 9:00 pm * $10

                The World Famous NIMBY Warehouse presents the Original NIMBY Circus.

                Featuring: Will Scarlet, HOBO Goblins, One Man Banjo, Circus Freaks,
                Laughing Sal, Therm, a Two headed cow, Sour Mash Hug Band, The
                Disgusting Spectacle, Cranky, Rockstars, The Odeon Bar's Circo De
                Solame Featuring Dammit the amazing wonder dog, Knee & Elbow, Funky
                Beulah, Esmeralda Strange, David Apocalypse, Rocky Rulet. Ethan
                Bixbee, Photo Boof, and special surprise guests.

                Starts at Dark. Donations are $10.
                NIMBY Warehouse is at 28th St. and Mandela Parkway in West Oakland.
                For more info call 510-433-0506.

                NIMBY
                1649 28th Street
                Oakland
                510-433-0506
                wwww.nimbyspace.org

                Over the Bay Bridge
                Take the I-880 S
                exit on the West Grand/Maritime Exit
                Merge unto W Grand Ave
                Turn Left unto Mandela PKWY
                Turn Right unto 28th St.

                The Bay Bridge will be closed eastbound AFTER 1:00 AM so getting here is not a problem and getting back is completely open.

                \<>/-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\<>/


                Curtis says: "give the girl a break, she just threw a party for 35,000 people"




                UNSUBSCRIBE: bman-announce-unsubscribe@



                Maid Marian
                Jack Rabbit Speaks
                jackrabbitspeaks@


                • Re: John Law was right...

                  Wed, July 18, 2007 - 11:44 AM
                  affinity:
                  > Are we talking about something in 2005?

                  Ooops. I'll admit that I hadn't realized that.

                  I just pulled up the email in my mbox and found that yes indeed, it included a _blatant_ promotion for a for profit cruise.

                  Andie:
                  > ...I should say, "Unless I'm mistaken..." because it was indeed 2 years ago

                  Hmmm... that was a quick retraction.

                  I looked through Da Mongolians post, and Marian does make some apologies.

                  Unfortunately, in the midst of those apologies she also brought out some new big issues. And I'm not sure that they were ever answered.

                  She said this which was blatantly false.

                  "I'm not promoting that un-named cruise line"

                  And she said this:

                  ""Lastly, there is no sellout here. ... It is TRUE I was more than motivated to post the information because they were donating some money to BRAF."

                  Jack Rabbit speaks is a vehicle for communication about the Burningman Culture, and it's promoting Carnival Cruises, because they are donating money. That's _not_ selling out? If McDonalds paid enough money, would she give them a listing?

                  Larry apparently didn't apologize for this fiasco, he just talked about how great commerce is.

                  "The following is in response to controversy concerning the use of the Jack Rabbit Speaks to promote a fund raising effort on behalf of the Black Rock Arts Foundation. More broadly, it’s a meditation on the meaning of commere and its relationship to culture. ... Burning Man has never opposed or condemned commerce. Civilization and commerce go hand in hand."

                  bm.tribe.net/thread/8ad3...53487202ec98

                  Andie, do you agree with Marian's conclusion that selling advertising for commercial events in Jack Rabbit Speaks is _not_ selling out?
                • Re: John Law was right...

                  Wed, July 18, 2007 - 11:48 AM
                  Hey, DaMongolian?

                  Where were you when this went down? Were you here in Los Angeles? The issue is that this was a very hot flash point.

                  I think the following link might be relevant. It was posted by Ranger Ernest, who is now currently one of the LA regional reps:

                  laburners.tribe.net/thread/c...2f3f7484b

                  It's worth reading the entire thread, because again, Larry does not actually make the posting himself. Remember, Larry Harvey does not exist. Nor does John Galt.

                  Hey Larry...you know Mark Pincus has an account here on Tribe and you can e-mail him directly. I know because I did. And you know what? he invited me to his house to have a chat.

                  You used to have a profile here on Tribe. I know. I tried to friend you.


                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: John Law was right...

                    Wed, July 18, 2007 - 3:08 PM
                    I was up here, in the bay area.

                    For what it's worth, the post to the JRS wasn't really promoting the cruise line itself, but rather an event being organized by InTIcketing (the people who handle our ticketing process) that happened to be taking place ON that particular cruise line.

                    I know, it's kinda splitting hairs, but it's still the case.

                    dM
  • BM is (almost) dead. Long live BMORG.

    Sat, June 30, 2007 - 12:37 AM
    It seems that the BMORG in their greed are killing the goose which lays golden eggs. (Although it’s not dead just yet, only gasping).

    And, Andie,
    I STILL did not get any straight forward answer to my simple (and reasonable) questions:
    “Why was any of this necessary?
    What can the event possibly gain from this (obviously controversial) “business maneuver”?

    And please know that “radically reinsert the core values of our culture into what is called the default world” does not sound like a reasonable explanation. It rather sounds like a typical media spin (and a not very convincing one at that).

    My prognosis:
    This imposed “culture shift” will cost BM it’s attendance numbers.
    It will also cause BM to lose it’s most valuable demographic asset, namely the unique, fiercely creative individualist “outsiders”.
    BM will quickly become like another Disneyland (although the drugs, booze and open sexuality might still survive).

    • Unsu...
       

      Re: BM is (almost) dead. Long live BMORG.

      Sat, June 30, 2007 - 1:08 AM
      >It seems that the BMORG in their greed are killing the goose which lays golden eggs. (Although it’s not dead just yet, only gasping).<

      what an imagination you have!

      >My prognosis:
      This imposed “culture shift” will cost BM it’s attendance numbers. <

      yes, hippies should stay home, that includes you.

      >BM will quickly become like another Disneyland<

      how can you compare the amazing feat of humanity called burning man to disneyland? anyone who does this is clearly stupid. you are stupid. i'm sorry, maybe you won't always be that way. just because it doesn't fit your hippie worldview doesn't make it any less awesome. you are such a bummer.
      • Re: BM is (almost) dead. Long live BMORG.

        Sat, June 30, 2007 - 3:28 AM
        Evil Chris.. read Walt Disney's bio, and you might have to change your word from "stupid" to "interesting" just sayin.
        There is a lot going on in that statement beyond the surface. Walt had a heck of a vision.
        • Re: BM is (almost) dead. Long live BMORG.

          Sat, June 30, 2007 - 3:33 AM
          > Burning Man is a destiny vacation. A vacation! I come to Burning Man to escape the world for a week. If I really wanted to go the real world >and make a difference, I'd be in Darfour, not Black Rock City.

          There ya go... Honest...

          If someone feels like he lives in a box 51 weeks a year and goes to the MAN to express himself. Then maybe he is a demographic. This festival fills a need that he can't seem to fill himself without help. I used to think that was a terrible thing. But ya know, I'm not so sure anymore. I've seen the view from the other side.

          As for me.....

          If the San Jose guys who are trying to use nano tech to replace expensive silicone based photo-voltaic show up. I'll hang with 'em and ask how close they are to making their stuff viable.

          If the ex-Dupont employee who quit his job and started the high tech plastic recycling company in my town shows up, I'll ply him with booze and ask if he's worked out any possible environmental and health risks to me & my neighbors.

          These people may or may not be doing the best things, but they try. They spend 51 weeks a year doing what they think will make a difference and make 'em rich in the process. Sure, what the hell...I'll give 'em exactly 2 minutes to impress me.


        • Re: BM is (almost) dead. Long live BMORG.

          Sat, June 30, 2007 - 3:34 AM
          > Burning Man is a destiny vacation. A vacation! I come to Burning Man to escape the world for a week. If I really wanted to go the real world >and make a difference, I'd be in Darfour, not Black Rock City.

          There ya go... Honest...

          If someone feels like he lives in a box 51 weeks a year and goes to the MAN to express himself. Then maybe he is a demographic. This festival fills a need that he can't seem to fill himself without help. I used to think that was a terrible thing. But ya know, I'm not so sure anymore. I've seen the view from the other side.

          As for me.....

          If the San Jose guys who are trying to use nano tech to replace expensive silicone based photo-voltaic show up. I'll hang with 'em and ask how close they are to making their stuff viable.

          If the ex-Dupont employee who quit his job and started the high tech plastic recycling company in my town shows up, I'll ply him with booze and ask if he's worked out any possible environmental and health risks to me & my neighbors.

          These people may or may not be doing the best things, but they try. They spend 51 weeks a year doing what they think will make a difference and make 'em rich in the process. Sure, what the hell...I'll give 'em exactly 2 minutes to impress me.
        • Re: BM is (almost) dead. Long live BMORG.

          Sat, June 30, 2007 - 7:43 AM
          "Walt had a heck of a vision. "

          Yes, he did, it is in fact not at all foriegn to the "vision" that many folks here would say they have and in fact Epcot Center was somewhat a proof of how hard it is to do. Dineyland was meant to be a zone that was different than the "default" world. One with people choosing a particular "community centered" lifestyle and it was also inteded to be as seperate as possible from government and local control. It quickly failed in CA though because of where he placed it, he ran out of room. To avoid that mistake he searched all over the country for another place to build, a very remote place. He found it in the middle of a swamp where he made special provisions with FL when buying the land that allowed it to be somewhat like the Vatican, mostly under its own control. The park was built but the real intent was Epcot, a place where inovation and imigination would be the hallmark of the community that chose to live there. In the end not enough people wanted to live that life so it got turned into what it is to survive. And over the decades everything got developed out there in the swamp that is today Orlando. Disney built Epcot to be removed from the default world as a vision of the community of the future and he wanted folks to come join it. Ironically another CA person who wanted to live outside of the default world cultrue moved to a place not to far from Orlando to live out the last days of his life, his name was Jack Kerouac.
    • Re: BM is (almost) dead. Long live BMORG.

      Sat, June 30, 2007 - 6:58 AM
      >BM will quickly become like another Disneyland (although the drugs, booze and open sexuality might still survive).<

      Oh, YEAH! I like the sound of that......I've had my eye on Goofy for a looooooooooong time. I wonder if he enjoys rohypnol with his pond water...
      • Re: BM is (almost) dead. Long live BMORG.

        Sat, June 30, 2007 - 7:57 AM
        This is a cross post from a similar thread on eplaya where a couple of people from one of the companies with products around the pavilion chimed in with some kneejerk posts (assuming they were genuine and not trolls) and got some pretty flaming replies. It sums up my opinion and I felt it needed to be posted here also. Many folks don't like eplaya... that's fine, but I felt it was relevant to this discussion. It's long so you can take it or leave it.

        And yes.. Always question marketing. Even your own marketing.

        ~~~~~~~~~~~

        Melody and Miss Coolette…

        I should tell you that the eplaya is a different sort of place. Consider it a test to post this stuff here. If you can make it fly on eplaya, the real playa should be just fine. But if this thread (and this is minor to some things I’ve seen here) is all it takes to get your hackles up, then you’ll never make it when you’re coping with this type of thing face to face. Most folks here will give great respect to a well articulated point of view, even if they don’t agree with it. But they don’t shy away from telling you how they feel in clear and often colorful terms.

        Regarding the greening of The Man, I’ve done my research and continue to do so, but I’ve yet to see anything that compels me to go along with this without question (and I’m very much for green technology). Much of what I’ve seen so far has been a “you guys just wait and see” attitude. I’ve read the descriptions and I am very interested in it. The pavilion is just part of the things I really want to learn about this year. For instance, I’m also excited to learn how Jim Mason and Chicken John are doing the gasification art pieces.

        But they’ve given pretty detailed descriptions of their projects for me to get excited about in terms I can wrap my head around. I’m only getting a lot of vague ideas about the pavilion. I’m imagining lots of cool applied technology with detailed info on how it works. I’m fearing kiosks full of smiling hawkers wanting to show me a product with their barely covered name on it. Let’s face it… your company’s name has been dropped twice already and there‘s lots of other pre-event naming of names. And I’ve got to admit that I'm on alert after picking up a copy of International Design Magazine late last year to find Arne Quinze bragging about getting funding from Lexus to build “The Waffle” and about how his crew was paid to be there. All the while he‘d been giving a very different story during the event and from the Uchronia website.



        So when this year I’m hearing about how companies will be showing technology around the man, it sort of raises some flags. To make a bad pun, “Burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice shame on me”. I’m holding out until the event to really make my own call on it, but I’m frankly worried about a place and event that is very dear to me. And you should know that I am one of those people you speak of who has been working seven days a week. I sweat my ass off during the day and work until midnight some nights on an art project that I’m funding out of my own pocket. I’m doing this because Burning Man is the only place where I can express what this project means to me and it be within context. It’s like a playdate and our art (be it big or small) are the toys we bring to share. So I’m pretty protective of that playground and the people I share it with. Forgive me that, but I don’t’ want to have to quite coming to the desert over the default world creeping in too much. I go to get away from that stuff.




        There are two reasons that I am willing to wait to make my call on this.

        The first is, I’ve said before that I feel Burning Man is an enormous catalyst for social change towards the better. I have witnessed things that showed me how the lessons learned on the playa can translate out into the world around us. I have seen people give of themselves tirelessly because Burning Man was the fabric that allowed them to work with others and be exponentially more effective.

        I also think burners supporting other burners with business patronage is a great idea, and I support it if done in certain ways. I buy my EL wire from some folks for the simple fact that they are burners and I would rather my money go to them than Chucky McMalFart. But if they ever straight up advertise on the playa, I’ll swear them off in a heartbeat. I support burner business networking but it has to be within context.

        But that seems secondary. Where I see the real value in the networking that Burning Man makes possible is the ability to help each other out and be a community regardless of where in the world you are. Here’s an example for you:

        One Friday a while back a dear eplaya friend suffered a life altering event. She was boarding a train in Austria and fell. She lost both her legs to the railcar wheels. That following Monday (if I remember correctly), the hospital in Austria got hold of her family in the States told them she was injured and in an induced coma. Word got to Tribe.net the same day. Karine (also an eplayan) sent an email to two friends, one in Munich and one in Berlin, and instantly there was a support structure setup. When the family members touched down in Austria they had someone waiting for them who knew the area well and could help them do the things that they had no time, or state of mind, to figure out. And when word was passed (while they were flying over the Atlantic Ocean) that her mother had left for the airport in a panic and forgotten her medication, there were replacements waiting for her when she touched down because of those connections Karine made two years ago by asking someone the simple question, “Have you ever heard of Burning Man?”.

        You see? This is where the value is at. Without this at the core, the business networking wouldn't amount to anything worthwhile. Money is important and we all need it to get by in this society. But the real gold is in the wealth of human spirit that this community builds from nothing but sweat and dry alkaline dust. And with any percieved threat to that, people are gonna get quick to defend it.

        If you have a company that can build that type of capital and make the world greener too, then I hope you succeed beyond your wildest dreams. I sincerely mean that. And I don’t doubt one bit that a world full of conscientious business leaders could make a much better society.


        The second and most influential reason is that I have worked side by side with some of the minds behind this greening The Man stuff and I have a great respect for them and trust that they will do the right thing when it comes to the event and the people who make it what it is. And so far I think they will. That doesn't mean I'll blindly accept what I read, but it gives it much more credibility.

        So Melo and Miss Collette, you have my ear.

        I don’t know either of you, but I’d like to if you feel so inclined. If Thumper says your ok, then I’ll listen because I trust his judgement. And I’ll wait to see what comes of this pavilion because I'm excited to learn about these things. I’d like for the two of you to stay around and talk about this with us. I, for one, want to know more about it and you are the horse’s mouth, so to speak. Thicken up your skin for the grumpy ones and let’s have a dialogue here.
        • Re: BM is (almost) dead. Long live BMORG.

          Sat, June 30, 2007 - 8:26 PM
          Also cross posting from the eplaya a question that I think is valid, and cuts to the core...

          'Will all of the specs for everything that is exhibited be available for us to take home and recreate?'

          If the answer is yes, then yippee! Non-commodification remains intact and we all win.

          If the answer is no, well then, that speaks volumes.

          Yes or no?
  • Re: John Law was right...

    Sat, June 30, 2007 - 5:35 PM
    I find myself not particularly caring that folks in the form of corporations (gasp) will be showing off their stuff at the pavilion. Corporations are all over the burn in the form of the products people use, services being provided (ice, power, sewage and so forth) and in the organization that runs the burn is guess what...a corporation. Oh my!

    I find it interesting that burners show a conservative streak when it comes to change. You'd think that people who run around naked or wearing various forms of weird outfits for a week in the desert would find some room for things to change a bit with their favorite survivalist party.

    If you were going to show off interesting bits of gadgetry or processes that promise to 'save the planet' or whatever fucking pipe dream people come up with to keep their car driving lifestyle alive, then it would seem like corporations are where the action is at.

    If I had a beef maybe it would be that having people demonstrating technology isn't much in the way of art or performance. That's a pretty far cry from a pyramid full of people doing performance art for example. Personally, I'd rather have the art, but then that can get a bit stagnant too. Perhaps the Borg got tired of putting on the same old makeup for another year and thought to try something different.
    • Re: John Law was right~

      Sat, June 30, 2007 - 6:11 PM
      “Perhaps the Borg got tired of putting on the same old makeup for another year and thought to try something different.”
      (Diode)

      So you don’t really think greed is a factor here?


      BTW,
      Speaking of gadgets, will any of these vendors have a “non commodified, non commercial presence” (discretely disguised, of course) at the “See our Hi Tech Products and Save The World” Pavilion?
      Cuz when it comes to gadgets, these guys are it:

      www.sharperimage.com/us/en/index.jhtml

      www.brookstone.com/world.asp

      • Re: John Law was right~

        Sat, June 30, 2007 - 6:37 PM
        //So you don’t really think greed is a factor here?//

        while i may not agree with the decision, i am pretty sure that greed was not a driving force.

        if the LLC was really out to extract $$ from participants, they could probably do so in a more direct way, and with an immediate return rather than waiting for gorilla marketing techniques to take hold.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: John Law was right~

        Sat, June 30, 2007 - 6:39 PM
        >I find it interesting that burners show a conservative streak when it comes to change. <

        this strikes me too....and that, despite protests that we not bring "the real world" to the burn, that it's the cynicism, the pre-emptive hand-wringing, the default suspicion of the very people who bring this thing to life every year, and the just plain fear of trying new things that is TOTALLY bringing the dreaded "real world" to the playa.

        how about a combo of vigilance, sincere questioning, and relax-and-find-out instead?
        • Re: John Law was right~

          Sun, July 1, 2007 - 6:33 PM
          What products would be shown if the theme was not green, but say the Floating World? Boats? Flying carpets? Hovercrafts? This year is green, but what about the future and what input do the citizens of Black Rock City have to deal with it if this doesn't work out?
          • Re: John Law was right~

            Wed, July 4, 2007 - 4:59 PM
            Man, Shooter, I was just thinking along those lines today.

            Future themes for Burning Man:

            - The Glory of Communication and Language! The theme's all about communication and languange and people! Where it just so happens that cell phone companies are showing off their super-neat wares that allow you to talk to anyone in the world, which brings us all together as people! It's great and it's helping the world and it's brought to you by Nokia...

            - The Freedom of Mobility and Self Reliance! It's all about hiking, camping, living completely off the grid with nothing but a pack on your back. A return to basics, straight up Waldon Pond man! Whole theme camps that walk in from Gerlach with all the stuff they need for the week. Super-lightweight camping structures! Giant working sextant sculptures that house raves inside! Crazy climbing mazes! It just so happens that REI and Nike are here too, with a big ol' tent showing off how cool it is to have outdoor adventures...

            - The Creativity of Expression! It's all about media! And Apple Computers!

            Hell I'm not even trying here.

            It is gonna be really interesting to see where this goes next year and the year after.
  • The color of green.

    Sun, July 1, 2007 - 8:11 PM
    I love change, I love adventure & I love new things.
    I also love science & hi tech matters.
    So why am I so uncomfortable with having some of these things at BM?

    Maid Marian’s explanation for making this move tells me that it is not about innovation. It’s not about adding an interesting new theme to the BM event.
    Her comments sound like it is about engaging the business community in marketing their wares to the “market pool” of the burners’ community.

    Those corporations do not do this (and invest the money it costs) for the love of God. For them it is a marketing venture, an advertising campaign.

    And why would the ORG consider doing this?
    Maid Marian has provided an answer to this question in her own words:
    “To ignore the value of our brand, the buying power it has, is silly. . . “
    So as far as I can tell this new pavilion is a commercial advertising venture.

    But the ORG has a problem here, because there is a principle of non commodifcation” at the event. And the new “Science Pavilion” is in direct conflict with this principle.
    So in order for the new Pavilion to be possible, the “no commercialism, no commodification” principle has to be “modified”.

    This is where our own sweet Andie comes in, her job is to “sell the idea” to us. She tells us that “There is no money changing hands” and that “the vendors will be treated just like any other BM artist” and that “the brand names will be concealed” etc.
    But regardless of this attempt at “image spin”, the new pavilion is a commercial venture, which DOES amount to bringing both commodification and commercialism to the event.

    It appears that the ORG (via Andie) is trying to conceal the fact that their reason for doing this is a business reason (namely, an advertising enterprise).

    The principle of “Truth in Advertising” also means telling your potential market the truth about the fact that you are advertising.

    THAT is what I resent. I don’t like deception, I don’t like “spin”, I don’t like advertising. And I particularly don’t like these at BM.

    PS,
    It took me some time to understand the true meaning of “Green Man”. But thanks to Maid Marian’s comments I now do get it.
    It is this kind of green:
    images.tribe.net/tribe/upl...2cc27dd691


  • Unsu...
     

    Re: John Law was right...

    Sun, July 1, 2007 - 8:46 PM
    Okay, I figured out what the Borg is getting. They are getting the free power generated by these company's green technologies. As a trade off for the donation they are going to let them market the tech to burners in the form of a pavillion.
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Sun, July 1, 2007 - 8:54 PM
      No offense, MP, but I thought that was obvious.
      • If it is so “obvious”, then how can Andie make the statements quotes below?

        “Chai, where do you get that money is changing hands? Because it's not.”

        “For the third time, these companies are NOT PAYING A FEE of any sort to participate. Nor are we paying them.”

        “Current TV doesn't pay either, nor do these companies or artists or exhibitors.”


        So they provide free electricity to the ORG rather than paying cold cash.
        Can you see how this affects the credibility of these statements made by Andie on behalf of the BMORG?
        • Maybe she's saying just what she means because money isn't changing hands. Trading access to the burner market for donation of green power equipment. Maybe there isn't even negotiation, just gifts in exchange for access. Like politicians get donations but there is no explicit talk of votes on issues in exchange. It doesn't even reach the definition of BARTER!

          The problems are:
          What will the pavilions be in the future?
          Will it determine or limit the theme?
          Will the org eventually take plain cash in exchange for access?
          Will they start to allow branding of products in the pavilion?

          To learn the answer to these and other burning questions... keep attending ;)



          • Silverman,
            Yeah I know just what you mean.
            Just the other day I made a donation of $ 22.- to Costco and they donated me a wrist watch.
            And we didn’t have to negotiate anything. We just (maybe) “had an understanding”.
            • So, let me get this straight...you think this whole Green Pavilion thing is just a conspiracy so the BMORG can save some money on gas?

              Are you people on crack? Or perhaps that's offensive to the people who are on crack, because generally they make more sense.

              Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, the BMORG really does care about this whole green idea and that in an effort to increase awareness of some of the fringier eco-projects out there, they dreamed up this "corporate outreach" thing? Is it that hard to imagine that the people who run Burning Man may actually have good intentions?

              And I thought I was a cynic...
              • Unsu...
                 
                ----Brian Said:---- (god damn it when are we going to get a quote function on here)
                So, let me get this straight...you think this whole Green Pavilion thing is just a conspiracy so the BMORG can save some money on gas?
                -----------------------

                I was just noting that I finally figured out what the BMorg is getting out of this. They are getting free power for the event, and then those solar panels are going to be gifted to Gerlach (aka, Burning Man's Nevada HQs) which will reduce their energy costs in the future. I'm willing to be that the BMorg spends 10's of thousands of dollars on electricity (commercial generators ain't cheap! And neither is their fuel, or the technician who has to run/monitor them.) If the green tech in the pavilion is "gifting" that to the BMorg it is actually a significant cost savings for the LLC. So yes, I think that is enough to create a motive.
                • Um, the solar in Gerlach will power public buildings. It will help save the schools and senior center money, but will not provide "general power" to the town nor power our offices in any way.

                  Is it not even a little bit plausible that "we" might be human beings who have bigger interests than our coffers?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    <<Is it not even a little bit plausible that "we" might be human beings who have bigger interests than our coffers?>>


                    This "we're human beings too" banner is a little tired. Even the Elephant Man was a human being!

                    Behind every single corporation is a group of human beings. By definition a corporation is a legal group of persons united in one body with separate legal powers and liabilities different from those of its individual members.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    BMORG are people too.

                    Mon, July 9, 2007 - 9:28 PM
                    /// Is it not even a little bit plausible that "we" might be human beings who have bigger interests than our coffers?” ///
                    (Andie G)

                    Yes, it is plausible, even likely.
                    But if so than why has the ORG committed to this decision BEFORE engaging in a meaningful dialogue with the community at large?

                    And why does Maid Marian speak of (OUR!) “buying power” as the primary motivation for this controversial decision?

                    And what about the (now defunct) BM principle of not commodifying/commercializing the event.

                    And why is the ORG so uncompromising (insensitive?) in the face of all this obvious burners’ indignation & protest, giving it lip service & media spin, but no real consideration?

                    Inquiring minds want to know.
                • \\I was just noting that I finally figured out what the BMorg is getting out of this."

                  When donating, are they not also getting a charitable donation on their taxes?

                  Hmmmmmmmmm. Yeah.
                  Well they will if they are smart about stuff if possible!

                  They are supposedly paying the companies to demonstrate and man this stuff right? So they are doing a good will gesture to these companies, rewarding them in a way (buttering up for sponsorship I venture)

                  All for (some things) that regular burners could bring themselves. They aren't giving free tickets or "paying" but they are spending 800,000.
                  For what.

                  Books are closed and it's a closely held corp so it's not like any of us would know this. Rest assured though, some of us WILL be paying attention to what is actually done.
                  Pierce the corporate veil.

                  Supposedly the panels wont be used to power hq so I'm not sure about all that. To do that would be stupid. If they are that stupid (with their customers) then this will be the death. Wayyyy bigger than getting rid of guns etc. Then again they are putting out this 800 grand for SOMETHING>
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: John Law was right...

        Sun, July 1, 2007 - 11:05 PM
        I've always liked DaBomb so her criticism of my brains slow chinese cargo ship of a brain in open water turn around is fair.

        I just connected the dots DaBomb. I was thinking in terms of cold hard cash, not a quid pro quo for the Burning Man org. Free resources are even better than cash, they aren't taxable.
  • HEY LOOK AT THIS FUCKING POST

    Mon, July 2, 2007 - 2:48 AM
    What about the issue of the default world and the burner world not being two different worlds? They are both wrapped around the same world. Notwithstanding the fact that I would never host an event in the manner BM does regardless of the demands that give BM its greatest quality which I can't fully appreciate, it size, there seems an extreme involvement, if not dependence, by a lot of us folks on corporate practices. My camp has always foreseen this and emulated satirical symbols of this coming as a style arising out of our collective consciousness. Personally I am glad this uproar is arriving. Ultimately this issue/eventuality will follow the free market convictions corporate practices and culture should subsume with liberalism and be eaten alive in this environment. The event won't sell out because it cannot overcome the biopower of its assembled participants. If this last statement isn't true than the whole house of cards is fucked and I'm going back to fuck this war and anarchy. Along with these other foundational issues at root is how we come to identify with the logo itself, with burning man, why does this eventuality, this forming and teeming of people come about because of what is called Burning Man? The logo and its trademarking (or copyrighting as I am gonna slop the legalease right now) are a natural extension of calling something by a name and sharing a meaning, particularly you're meaning of burning man, or anyones.

    I don't know if a capitalist can measure an event's meaning but every critic can choose their style.

    Hand Eye Team Go!
    • Re: HEY LOOK AT THIS FUCKING POST

      Mon, July 2, 2007 - 10:36 AM
      The BMorg says that the corporations that have been invited to participate in our little green convention are disallowed from using their logos and brand names in their "gifts".

      Let's keep things real. If a business wants to support / sponsor, then they should be allowed to say that they are giving this gift and not be asked to remove a logo. A logo is the face of a corporation. It's what identifies things to the consumer.

      When I go to a store say I'm looking for toothpaste, but I'm looking for a "green toothpaste", I'll identify the brand on the shelf from the other non-green toothpaste because of their brand name and their logo. I buy the product and hey: I support green, they support green. It's all good! We're all doing our part to make the world a better place. Hooray!

      It's like my brand name is "DaBomb" and perhaps you may recognize my face on the playa. Say I offer you some homemade ice cream that I made in my camp then it would be silly to give this gift but do everything I can to withhold my identity from. You might be enjoying this ice cream and somebody might go "Where did you get it" but then you couldn't just say "Oh, DaBomb gave it to me." Does that sound ludicrous to you? Because it does to me.

      That's what BMorg is asking these corporations to do. And that's just rude to invite somebody to a party and but ask them to put a freakin' bag on their face. It's simply rude or just plain silly.

      And even if the guest agrees to attend under the conditions the BMorg puts out, the word still gets out, right? In fact, it's getting out now. Everybody knows Google is in the Green Pavilion at Burning Man and they know it through live face-to-face discussions, through threads like this, through blogs and through word of mouth. That's viral marketing. It's a marketing method that facilitates and encourages people to voluntarily promote a message or product through word of mouth or through Internet networks.

      As for logos, the Burning Man symbol is a logo, after all. And that logo is everywhere in Black Rock City. It's like the only logo that's permitted to be exhibited at Burning Man. That's irony. Pure irony or utter hypocrisy -- but hey -- that's the BMorg: "We're Burning Man, we do what we damn want!" As a customer/volunteer/participant/stakeholder in their event, I think the BMorg should be more accountable to the Community (drink!) whose good will they rely upon and foster.
      • Re: HEY LOOK AT THIS FUCKING POST

        Mon, July 2, 2007 - 12:49 PM

        I think you didn't fully appreciate my points about gorilla marketing, even when you aren't selling bananas. Basically, for burners it may be more effective to be subtle and not show your face. Creates mystery. It generates word of mouth. It results in blogs and postings. It becomes "viral." The consumer becomes part of the message, an active *participant* if you will, and to some extent personalizes it, owns it. Far more effective than plastering a logo all over the city, whether San Francisco or Black Rock. Less intrusive as well because each person choses to care enough to learn the source of the gifts.
        • Re: HEY LOOK AT THIS FUCKING POST

          Mon, July 2, 2007 - 1:31 PM
          "That's what BMorg is asking these corporations to do. And that's just rude to invite somebody to a party and but ask them to put a freakin' bag on their face. It's simply rude or just plain silly. "

          AND YET, there it is. That's what we're doing. We want to play with their brains and creativity, unadulterated by branding or sales pitches, because they know stuff we want to share and learn from in this year's theme. Not really all that hard to understand, but like I said, it's a special kind of innovator who's going to grok that, which is why so many folks have already said, "Thanks but no thanks!"
          • Re: HEY LOOK AT THIS FUCKING POST

            Mon, July 2, 2007 - 1:45 PM
            AND YET this whole issue is cloudy.

            I'm curious as to what exactly is in the contract that our Guests are required to sign. Some clear information (without any spin) about what the terms are in this contract (i.e. "invitation") should be made public to all parties involved including the Community (drink!).

            It's possible that this sort of transparency may put the issue to rest.

            Gorilla marketing? :D Yes! We have no bananas!

            Oook oook...
      • Re: HEY LOOK AT THIS FUCKING POST

        Mon, July 2, 2007 - 2:55 PM
        So if I go running around with my Giant Nike Swoosh Flag someone will say put it away?
        • Re: HEY LOOK AT THIS FUCKING POST

          Mon, July 2, 2007 - 6:21 PM
          If you live that long ;)
          • Re: HEY LOOK AT THIS FUCKING POST

            Mon, July 2, 2007 - 6:54 PM
            <howling!>

            Who needs branding?


            "I'm curious to see what happens at the intersection of art and technology," says B.J. Stanbery, CEO of Austin-based Heliovolt, a maker of thin-film photovoltaic solar cells.

            Then there's Matt Cheney, CEO of MMA Renewable Ventures, which funds clean technologies around the globe and offered to provide Black Rock City with enough solar cells - 270 kilowatts' worth - to light the Man and power the pavilion.

            "Branding's important, "Goodell says," but there's a middle ground between having it all over the place and just knowing that it's Current TV and feeling good about the way they're treating you. That's a very interesting potential for companies that see a value in Burning Man culture."
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: HEY LOOK AT THIS FUCKING POST

              Mon, July 2, 2007 - 7:13 PM
              "
              "Branding's important, "Goodell says," but there's a middle ground between having it all over the place and just knowing that it's Current TV and feeling good about the way they're treating you. That's a very interesting potential for companies that see a value in Burning Man culture.""

              God that pisses me off. There is no middle ground on this issue. I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT LOGOS OR MARKETING OR BE MARKETED TO BY CORPORATIONS AT BURNING MAN. PERI-MOTHER-FUCKING-OD.
              • Re: HEY LOOK AT THIS FUCKING POST

                Mon, July 2, 2007 - 7:17 PM
                WEll, that's probably why Current TV accepts no advertising whatsoever during their Burning Man programming, and re-names itself during those blocks as well. They're burners first and news-generators second.

                Again, this is a spot where I think Marian's words were taken remarkably out of context.
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: HEY LOOK AT THIS FUCKING POST

                  Mon, July 2, 2007 - 10:21 PM
                  "WEll, that's probably why Current TV accepts no advertising whatsoever during their Burning Man programming, and re-names itself during those blocks as well. They're burners first and news-generators second. "

                  Unless you count the ten minutes of commercials before that bled into the time the Burning Man programming was supposed to start or having to sit through multiple commercials if you wanted to watch it on "current on demand".
  • Re: John Law was right...

    Mon, July 2, 2007 - 10:16 PM
    That magazine article with the business suit on the Man graphic was kind of unfortunate in that you know that people are going to get their hackles up about it.

    The mere thought of a corporation sullying the sacred space of the Burn with its products seems to be like blasphemy to some. Of course, literally almost every single thing that burners use at the burn is probably produced in part by a corporation.

    It's a protected space for sure, one that's a leetle bit removed from the strictures of the default world. Even the sheriff's and BLM wink a bit at things that go on there. We all want to be there for its light, color and beauty in the desert. Huzzah!

    So, is corporate-sponsored technology being displayed at the pavilion some kind of infernal violation of the values that make the burn sacred? Well, for one thing the Burn is not sacred, it's a culture that creates intentional freedom to create and be unique.

    I think the Borg has done an incredible job of protecting the space that makes the Burn happen. Maybe in some other multiverse, there is a better Borg, but in this one the Burn is thriving.

    Corporations are not scheming to get into this thing of ours. There's no money to be made, no marketing, no collecting of demographics, no profits out there or afterward. Our demographic population is a tiny one compared to the big world and it's particularly ornery, contentious and liable to want to do something radically self-expressive instead of being compliant sheep.

    I think the Borg wants exactly what we want, a great Burn, but their perspective is a little different. How many times can you put up a pyramid and burn a big Guy before it gets a little old. Maybe they have a vision of the future that involves the Burn being a vehicle for social change beyond fuzzy coats and ditzy cars.

    In the economic sphere, corporations are all over the burn. In the social arena, they don't have a role there. I think that's key. The Borg is opening a tiny space in the overall context of the burn to show off some tech that's maybe cool, maybe world changing. Who knows? I, for one, am willing to suspend my disbelief and see what happens.
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Mon, July 2, 2007 - 11:23 PM
      Burning Man is a marketer's dream, attracting a preponderance of highly educated, relatively affluent participants in their 30s and 40s, followed in order by those in their 20s and then their 60s, Harvey said.

      "If we let them, there'd be Burning Man vodka and Burning Man everything," Harvey said.

      from: www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/s...0848.html
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Mon, July 2, 2007 - 11:49 PM
        I had a bottle of Burning Man Ouzo that Barb Traub gave me. Sat in my fridge for nearly 7 years before I tossed it.

        I have the Burning Man Tarot cards and a Burning Man votive candle that Boggman made.

        It's been done... just not by a corporation.
        • Re: John Law was right...

          Tue, July 3, 2007 - 3:19 AM
          I am not against "green technology" being featured, displayed, encouraged, etc.
          But It's simple.
          If the BMorg only wanted to promote green technologies (and had no other motive) all they had to do was recruit / encourage "green" theme camps. Maybe put a little "G" on the site map designating those theme camps that created, used, displayed green technologies...

          we could then have fun visiting them all. Maybe getting a little passport or some silly brochure expalining same rubber stamped during our visit if they really wanted to encourage "edutainment".

          To INVITE ONLY certain companies into the DPW built pavillion under the man (that is paid for in part via ticket sales- ie: us) is the problem.
          That makes them "special" and BM "branded" .
          That is what I object to.

          They should be treated like any other theme camp.
          It would be up to the camp to uphold decom. (as well as other) BM principles. Let the participant/consumer beware.

          Do I understand correctly that the Google supplied web kiosks will link to the developer's/project website?

          Don't use the web kiosks then. Don't give them the hits that they will be surely counting on.

          Unfortunately the media will go hog wild about any protest activity- Divide and Conquer tactics people!

          I think culture jamming may be the only way... That and don't set foot in the place (the Green Pavillion)...

          Oregon Country Faire has had an "Energy Park" for years, www.energypark.org/
          and I wonder if that in fact is their inspiration....
          but it is a FAIRE!
          IE: crafts for sale, food for sale, paid musicians etc.
          Big difference in my book.

          OCF is also a 501c3 NON-PROFIT not an LLC!

          • Re: John Law was right...

            Tue, July 3, 2007 - 3:32 AM
            BTW; I met Larry Harvey when he came to Portland, Oregon this Spring. He came to our Regional Town Hall and spoke at the Village Building Convergence.
            I am impressed with his vision, his ideas and what he has helped create.
            He was approachable, personable and I felt he listened to what folks had to say.

            I think this goofy execution of a possibly good idea (the Green Pavillion) is the result of too few people sitting in a conference room , who have (hopefully only temporarily) lost sight of their own principles.
            • Re: John Law was right...

              Tue, July 3, 2007 - 4:22 AM
              Okay, so I faalready orgot about the Discovery Channel "only in America" show last year...

              Temporary seems to have become repeated...

              Why, with the HUGE Burner base handy in SF and their "market Savvy" did they not "focus group" test this idea?

              Because they don't care?
              Because they KNOW people wouldn't like it?
              Because they really knew better?
              Because they know we will talk it to death and try to convince ourselves it is okay,
              and then show up and go visit it, just so we can see for ourselves?

              Well the 10 principles are worth upholding... but in practice that seems to be difficult, like the 10 commandments or the constitution, or the golden rule or ...?
              • Re: John Law was right...

                Tue, July 3, 2007 - 9:25 AM
                Chai Guy and I were right two years ago with the Discovery Channel's "Only In America". We've been sitting here watching this thread going "this is what we were talking about way back then!"

                At that time, we launched the Black Rock City Community Collective, a real a grassroots movement comprised of burners and community organizers acting in concerted effort to assist the BMorg in collaborating together with the Community to make wise choices for the greater good of the Burning Man Arts Festival. Our aim is to make the experience of Burning Man one in alignment with our highest values of radical self-expression, self-reliance, community-in-action, and the gift economy.

                The BRC-CC's mission is to focus the Community's energy to impact positively on the Burning Man Arts Festival by deflecting energies that are sapping the event's vitality into more positive directions. We strive to give voice and empowerment to every person that participates, and in so doing, assisting the Community to reflect and expand its own highest standards for art, self-reliance, self-expression, communal effort and civic responsibility. Since BMorg tends to speak downwards to the masses, we serve to give the Community a voice to speak back with authority resulting in a positive dialogue and accountability.

                Together we hope we can work to preserve integrity of our home -- our special place, our sacred space -- to commune, to celebrate, to create and to radically express. Therefore, we believe when the founding principles of Burning Man are compromised, weakened or threatened, it is within the Community's right to speak out and for the BMorg to hear us and respond accordingly.

                As part of our mission, we aim preserve and uphold Burning Man's "10 Principles" and to watchdog against the erosion of these principles.

                Click here to learn more: www.savebrc.org/BRC-CC/Home.html and participate.

                John Law *was* right.
  • Re: John Law was right...

    Tue, July 3, 2007 - 7:39 AM
    Some people say OK green technology....
    All the companies described are creating green technology...
    we like green technology....
    but what if they had said well mcdonalds and
    haliburton are coming... they just won't brand...

    the point isn't what kind of companies are coming...
    the point is WHO NEEDS IT.....
    we don't ....
    I don't need google earth kiosks in center camp....

    and I strongly assert that google kiosks in center camp
    WILL change the feel of the event (even if it is only in degrees-
    but that can add up quickly when you start running into it right and left,
    down the road - SPRITE anti-commercials don't fool us and
    this non-branded marketing will soon become obvious to decode as well)
    and the change this creates to the event will not be in a way that is coherent with what has been
    enjoyable about this experiment....

    non-corporate, non-marketed, interaction....
    I think you're all way missing the SUCK.
    the corporate guys are right, they know down the road
    this is slippery slope they always win once in the door.

    So then we all expand into our regionals...
    And then what happens when the BRC LLC which controls
    the regionals insists that they have wonderful corp participation and pavillions too..
    then we are all of at LIB, and other non-BRC LLC events. Stupid.

    Sure I'll ignore it this year, walk around it, and the rest of the event will
    overshadow it, but it is still a pile of SHIT
    cheers
    revv
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: John Law was right...

      Tue, July 3, 2007 - 9:19 AM
      >WHO NEEDS IT.....we don't ....I don't need google earth kiosks in center camp....<

      unless i'm mistaken, what burning man needs is not up to any one person.

      >and I strongly assert that google kiosks in center camp WILL change the feel of the event<

      of course it will. just as opening the beach up to hundreds meant the event had to move out of state to begin with....
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Tue, July 3, 2007 - 9:28 AM
        //unless i'm mistaken, what burning man needs is not up to any one person.//


        I agree, Sulevay. But BM is not just up to the 6 people who sit on the board of the LLC either. They are accountable to the thousands of members of Community who's good will they rely upon through ticket sales and volunteering to make the event happen.

        • Re: John Law was right...

          Tue, July 3, 2007 - 6:32 PM
          From the bu$ine$$ 2.0 article:

          "Its [google's] engineers are building software for unbranded kiosks at the pavilion where participants can zoom in to a virtual version of Burning Man"

          Yeah, this is what I've always wanted, a way to substitute my immediate REAL experience at Burning Man, with a VIRTUAL one.
  • Re: John Law was right...

    Wed, July 4, 2007 - 9:34 AM
    >WHO NEEDS IT.....we don't ....I don't need google earth kiosks in center camp....<

    unless i'm mistaken, what burning man needs is not up to any one person.<<

    what I need....
    what anyone NEEDS.....

    there is a pattern of what it is...

    when the burn moved from the beach to the desert IT NEEDED TO MOVE
    and it was for the benefit of the community...

    Bringing in companies may be ENTERTAINING TO SOME, mostly, not...
    but no one needs it....

    And many / most don't want it, or simply wouldn't care if it was not present...
    don't need it....
    and unlike most of the stuff there, it will be very unpleasant to many,
    on the order of drunk lookee loos on the weekend...
    I ignore them... but many people can't stand them.... anyway...
    as a concept, unlike the art and other things that have built up over time,
    like the no money, MARKETING, vibe....

    this is clearly FOR THE BENEFIT of the LLC and the companies
    NOT for the attendees...
    all you have to do is look at how they talk about it...
    the value of the burning man audience to their PRODUCTS.

    Like I said, i'll ignore it fine, smile when there is sabatage,
    as it will expand....
    but you cannot perfume this pile
    it is simply shit...
    as bill hicks put it...
    no controversy, just shit.... pile of shit.
    cheers
    revv
    • But who really need tit ?

      Wed, July 4, 2007 - 10:12 AM
      revvrob,
      I have asked the same question many times here on this thread, nicely and clearly.
      The fact that I did not get ANY answer speaks loudly.

      Can you spell T O T A L I T A R I A N ?
  • Re: John Law was right...

    Wed, July 4, 2007 - 12:01 PM
    Wow Um...
    this thread is getting really long but...i feel...i feel....the burning need to add my two cents in.

    Burning man is not anti corporation.
    It is not anti-market place or anti-consumerism.
    To my understanding, it never was to begin with.
    What Burning Man does is try to put into perspective what can and can not be made into a commodity. It reminds us that things like love, friendship, gifting, and human connection are uber valueable and should not be bought and sold or revolve around any monetary value system.
    I also think that it makes a statement about the privatization of water, which is going on all over the world, (but especially by coca cola in India). IT reminds us that water is not an unlimited resource and should be protected, valued, but also, SHARED with EVERYONE that needs it.
    There have been, and will always be, things that are bought and sold. That in itself isnt bad. Its selling things that shouldnt have a price tag put on them thats evil.
  • Re: John Law was right...

    Wed, July 4, 2007 - 6:54 PM
    Aside from also noting how the article seems clearly skewed, a very interesting discussion – definitely a watermark.

    I wish only to add that, it is helpful and imo crucial to indeed walk the talk from BRC back onto the pavement, and vice-versa, i.e. by avoiding the projection of bad actions (such as commodification of principles / values) inevitably back onto people, or even, physical things.

    Although much of business culture is run by folks who to a great extent live according to the corporate / political model of reality (e.g. some our naturally superior to others, others are naturally inferior, competition and opposition is natural, the way is up, consumption is an end in-itself, and we are all at the center of things), that does not necessarily mean that they are somehow on some other side of reality – i.e. there is a good side, and then there is a bad, evil side of humanity and / or nature.

    It’s the ideas, images, beliefs that <they> more-or-less accept or do not reject as false, which make up THAT (<their>) rather extreme, complex, and, unfortunately, very deeply rooted form of reality – not the people or the nature in it. It’s probably even more parasitic upon them than it is to all of us. It’s not <them> so much as the culture of ideas etc they are (trapped) in….

    But it’s not just “them” -- look how many of us who go to Burning Man, once found ourselves more-or-less trapped within the same structures, filtering through many institutions, organizations, and relationships – look how many “rich” and “poor,” “beautiful” and “ugly” people, moreover, who have found themselves one day growing up (and, unfortunately, re-projecting) amidst so much crappy information, striving to “be THE man,” and/or “to bring the man down.”

    Although I am not real comfy with the idea of “reinserting” Burning Man community values back out onto the pavement,” I do find “living” the reality more-closer-to-home amongst us all, burner and non-burner alike. How many of us do not find ourselves side-by-side in a bar on a space-cruiser, in a dust-storm, or in front of the porta potties by someone who (also) lives amidst A CORPORATE CULTURE which is in various degrees behind the curve of where Burning Man reality is at? The conversation can and often does make for some interesting turns and transformations, or, well, it can result in another one-of-those “burnier-than-thou” bitter tastes thereby hatching from both sides.

    Moreover, one does not have to be a burning man participant in order to have a correct influence on people. Invariably, doesn’t everyone find their own way back home (wherever that may be for them) on their own way with the cosmos?

    It seems clear to me that this experiment with technologies in the green pavilion, is just that. As I see the relationships between the folks behind these technologies and their companies, and with all of us and with all that is Burning Man and Black Rock City, the technologies themselves will sell the technologies themselves. Any person (whoever they are) who corporately inserts themselves in between the technology and the observer/ participant is sure enough to receive a good shock, because we all in the end (wherever, whenever, and however that may be) more-or-less can and perhaps do leave the corporate / political culture behind.
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Wed, July 4, 2007 - 7:22 PM
      My theme for 2008 would be "Bathroom Humor"
      What are some good companies that I could get into the ground floor of that one?
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Wed, July 4, 2007 - 7:42 PM
        **My theme for 2008 would be "Bathroom Humor"
        What are some good companies that I could get into the ground floor of that one?**

        larry flint (hustler magazine) would jump all over that one...
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: John Law was right...

          Thu, July 5, 2007 - 6:50 AM
          >Bringing in companies may be ENTERTAINING TO SOME, mostly, not...
          but no one needs it.... <

          to say that bringing specifically *green* companies in is about entertainment - rather than an acknowledgment that the ecology of the planet is in serious trouble and headed for more - is to eschew the kind of voluntary responsibility that burning man is famous for, and to demean precisely that quality which separates the burn from the ubiquitous, profit-first carelessness that characterizes the consumer-driven world.

          so they're trying it, because we need to do something - we NEED to do something - and i for one appreciate the attempt, and am willing to see how it goes.

          what makes the burning man so-called demographic different, hopefully, is that we DO care, we are motivated by something other than just making a self-serving buck and wanting to have a temporary vacation from that reality. the fact is, our big party is wasteful in many respects, and to continue conscientiously, we have to change as that principle asks us to change, and no one has the map; we have to find our own way.

          let's give each other some credit, and at least a small benefit of the doubt that there may be people behind some of these helpful technologies who share that value, or if they don't, that there's the capacity for mutual growth thru risking dialog.
          • Re: John Law was right...

            Thu, July 5, 2007 - 11:51 AM
            It is simple...
            read the 10 principals of Burning Man and the Mission Statement here...
            www.burningman.com/whatisbu...ples.html

            Then read the quotes in the article by BRC LLC members
            Do they match?

            The fact that exhibitors in the green Pavillion won't be able to display their logos is irrelevent.

            Those in in the Green Pavilion will have been blessed by "the Man" They will become "Burning Man approved and branded" after the event....

            if those invited to the pavilion were just theme camps encouraged to attend to pump up the green theme, then that would have been okay.

            If the set up a green technology expo and traveled the US with it- THAT would be progress.



            • Re: John Law was right...

              Thu, July 5, 2007 - 12:08 PM
              Speaking "green" theme camps such as Earth Guardians, The AEZ (the Alternative Energy Zone) and Recycle Camp, the BMmorg does not "officially" endorse them through their Green Blog that Tom Price runs.

              I've devoted at least 4 episodes to the "Greening of Burning Man" movement including two interviews with Kachina Katrina and Blue, the forces behind the movement, Jolly Roger from the AEZ and how L.A. Decom was greened. I also did a spin on the green movement with the current episode on an art project called "Green Shoes"

              BMorg did not endorse or promote these episodes either, so it would seem that BMorg is very selective in what they do promote. And so I ask again, what is the terms of the contract that our Guests asked to sign in order to be allowed to attend. If money is not being exchanged, than why not be more transparent.

              Also, why not promote from within? Use the content, information and resources that it's own Community (drink!) has brought to the party?

              You wanna hear what the Community is doing to green the event? Go to listen to my podcast www.BURNcast.net
              It's free to download and it's commercial free.




  • Re: John Law was right...

    Thu, July 5, 2007 - 12:41 PM
    Maybe I'm missing something, but I do not see anything offensive in the article. This year will be my third burn. I am confident that, after the burn, if everyone agrees that the Green Pavilion was against the Burning Man principles, then it will not be repeated.
    • Re: John Law was right...

      Thu, July 5, 2007 - 12:55 PM
      "if everyone agrees that the Green Pavilion was against the Burning Man principles, then it will not be repeated."

      How would anyone know if everyone agrees? You think they'll poll the community? Or by 'everyone' do you mean the LLC?
      • Re: John Law was right...

        Thu, July 5, 2007 - 1:20 PM
        I think "we," meaning the participants, will make our voices heard right here on Tribe. What might be even better is the bulletin boards on burningman dot com. The BMORG does poll the community after the event, on the bulletin boards.
        • Re: John Law was right...

          Thu, July 5, 2007 - 2:11 PM
          Sorry Muppet, I couldn't disagree with you more. If you were around in 2005 then you know the shit stormed caused by The Discovery Channel Shooting their "Only in America" episode. Da Bomb and I personally delivered a stack of signed petitions and letters from the "community", while wearing tutus for christ's sake!

          This was the "official response" found in the 2005 Afterburn Report:

          >>>>Although no unusual trends appeared in 2005 in the number or size of the media groups approved to film this year, something about one particular media outlet pushed a few buttons for some Burning Man participants. Discovery Times is a boutique cable channel under the Discovery Channel umbrella in collaboration with the New York Times. Discovery Times applied to send a crew to do a first-person travel-show-style episode for its series "Only In America." Three or four Discovery Channel applications were turned away in previous years, but this proposal had all the elements together and seemed prepared to make a solid piece about the event. Since deeply personal, firsthand coverage seems to tell Burning Man’s story the best, this proposal seemed a good fit. But some Burning Man participants took exception to this approval, citing displeasure with the commercial nature of the cable channel’s parent company and what they deemed a "reality TV" approach to television.

          It isn’t clear what about this proposal exactly pushed new buttons, since projects like it have been approved for years. Burning Man’s decision to approve the show was in line with its approach to media coverage since 1995 and even earlier. With respect for context and careful guidelines for the rights of participants, coverage like Discovery Times can in fact accurately capture the very newsworthy story of Black Rock City. As with any such coverage, Burning Man retains the right to review footage before it is broadcast through the careful use of entrance policies and written agreements. While no one wants to micromanage the creativity of any filmmaker, the Media team does work to protect Black Rock City by proactively keeping an eye on specific issues in coverage of the event.<<<<


          So you see, complain all you want, it's their party (burning man llc's) and you're just there to pay the bills and clean up the mess.

          Oh and in case you didn't hear, DISCOVERY IS BACK!
          • Re: John Law was right...

            Thu, July 5, 2007 - 2:46 PM
            Ugh. I missed the whole Discovery Channel controversy. I do not agree to ANY filming at BM, let alone for commercial use. I don't feel as free to express if someone is filming me. And the filming that I HAVE seen had to be so spotlessly "clean" that it ended up looking stupid.
            I see your point - BMORG ignored the participants. Ugh x 2.
            I thought one example of BMORG listening was when they gave BMORG2 ( I think that was their name) prime real estate to have their own "event within the event" because of artistic differences. Then again, BMORG won that argument as well...
            My ears are still open. I *am* still going, even with the weird corporations included. Hmmm...takes "inclusive" to a whole new level!
          • Re: John Law was right...

            Sun, July 8, 2007 - 12:00 PM
            "Discovery Times is a boutique cable channel under the Discovery Channel umbrella in collaboration with the New York Times. Discovery Times applied to send a crew to do a first-person travel-show-style episode for its series "Only In America."


            Oh that's funny. I would call them a premium cable channel.
            NYT, a national newspaper.

            And the show, a reality series cum travel show.

            That's just me. And the industry.

            I'll pm ya chai, I'm quite curious on what the spin is for the new one.

            I may just do my own expose' this year will all this going on. Hmmm. Maybe sponsored. Cause that seems to be acceptable at this point.

            If bm is literally in a state of atrophy, mainstream media used for this purpose, then multiple burners should be doing similar things. Like burncast has been doing. Responsibly and with a level of integrity.
  • Unsu...
     

    The Media Loophole

    Thu, July 5, 2007 - 1:58 PM
    There is an important aspect of this discussion that, curiously, seems to be entirely absent.

    What do you think the media coverage of Burning Man will be like when you return home from Black Rock City this year?

    The Business 2.0 article is only the tip of the iceberg. Consider the fact that the new green technologies demonstration pavilion is tied into the theme, it is being pushed by Larry Harvey and the Org, it represents a new direction for Burning Man and it is generating controversy within the community. The hundreds of journalists who flock to the playa every year are going to be all over this.

    While there will be no overt branding, sales or marketing allowed on the playa, and corporations will not be allowed to use Burning Man in their advertising after the festival, you can bet some of the more media-savvy corporations are salivating at the chance to openly demonstrate their products at the worl'd hippest counterculture festival, precisley because they know it will generate the kind of publicity money can't buy. If a journalist with a major metropolitan daily is suitably impressed with a specific technology that is demonstrated, a corporate brand has the potential to be exposed to hundreds of thousands of people in a positive light. Anyone with basic PR skills knows this kind of thing can be far more effective than commercial advertising, as positive coverage by the free press offers legitimacy and credibility in a way that advertising does not. The corporations can include their newspaper clippings in investor packages, while at the same time they are getting their message out strongly to a progressive, caring, young, innovative, tech-savvy demographic. The Org knows this, and I imagine the prospect of media coverage is the key selling point in discussions between the Org and these corporations.

    Media coverage is a big loophole that allows corporations to use Burning Man and Burners to effectively market their technologies. The Org can deflect criticism more easily because they're sticking to their principles (no overt branding/sales/marketing on or off the playa) and because they can use the excuse that they have no control as to what is printed in the media. I highly doubt there would be much corporate interest in this project if Burning Man was NOT a media phenomenon. Undoubtedly, some of the folks who will be manning the booths on behalf of their corporations will be from their PR departments.

    That said, I have no doubt that the intentions of the Org are completely sincere, as the ecological track record of Burning Man has continued to improve throughout the years. I have trouble believing there are elements of greed at work here: the LLC members do not stand to gain financially from this.

    I am not exactly sure how I feel about this situation right now, I think it is a "wait and see how it shakes out" kind of thing. But there is one thing I'm certain of: this move represents a paradigm shift in Burning Man culture that has been building the past few years, and it will create more turnover in the ranks of veterans. We are no longer a small community of communities, we are a mass movement with the international media spotlight shining upon us, and this is altering the character of Burning Man.

    • Unsu...
       

      Re: The Media Loophole

      Thu, July 5, 2007 - 2:39 PM
      >a corporate brand has the potential to be exposed to hundreds of thousands of people in a positive light.<

      if that corporate brand serves to green a larger portion of the planet, i think that has the potential for greater good. i'm here in middle ohio right now, visiting family, and the absence of even peripheral awareness about the state of the world's ecology is overwhelming!

      >this is altering the character of Burning Man.<

      i understand the concern, but change is inevitable....i just think it's presumptuous to assume ANY change is Bad with a capital B.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: The Media Loophole

        Thu, July 5, 2007 - 3:07 PM
        Nowhere in my post did I say that this was "bad," nor did I imply that change is "bad." All I did was add some points of discussion to the debate, important aspects that were missing, things that people will have to confront in September. I have not come to any conclusions about this yet, and, while I have a tendency to be critical, analytical and questioning, I'm also an optimist who has faith in the community, and, as someone who has volunteered with the Org for years, I give them the benefit of the doubt. Innovation and awareness in the world of green technology is good, but we do need to closely scrutinize the relationship between Burning Man culture and corporate culture, lest we stray off into directions that are ultimately destructive to the community.

        • Unsu...
           

          Re: The Media Loophole

          Thu, July 5, 2007 - 6:42 PM
          >Nowhere in my post did I say that this was "bad," nor did I imply that change is "bad."<

          no, you didn't, jody, and i apologize if you took my comments personally. i was referring to the alarmist tone that's evident in so many posts here *before the fact*, which i feel is reactionary and damn-near fundamentalist in nature.

          i agree with the rest of your comments, as far as giving the community the benefit of the doubt while being conscientious about how this all plays out.
          • Worth noting....

            Fri, July 6, 2007 - 5:01 PM
            It's been five days since I last looked at Tribe, and since I posted my personal cell phone number inviting anyone concerned with the Green Man Pavilion or who's participating in it to contact me.

            Since I'm the Environmental Manager for BM 2007, and since I'd be likely to know more about this topic than most people, I figured at least ONE of the many people in this thread so concerned about what's going on this year would be in touch, to find out more, from the source, if you will.

            But, in all that time, not one private message. Not a single call.

            How, then, to interpret the silence? Might it be some people are more interested in stirring the pot, than finding out what's cooking?

            Worth reflecting on. But not too long--I'm in Gerlach, and the playa's hot and dusty, time to go play outside.
            • Re: Worth noting....

              Fri, July 6, 2007 - 5:24 PM
              Tom,

              All the folks that have reached out are tired of not being listened to.

              How are you going to be different? Are you actually goign to LISTEN? Or are you going to just do your job to spin things again?

              I mean, no offense, but you have no cred. Who are you, where did you come from? How long have you been going to Burning Man?

              And, why don't you feature my "green" episodes of BURNcast on your blog? I have featured Jolly Roger from the AEZ, a long time member in the community (drink) on BURNcast. I have also featured both Kachina Katrina and Blue who started the whole "Greening the Burn" movement. I've devoted an entire episode to that as well as an entire episode of how the L.A. regional network has greened their Decom.

              And you know what? I sent an e-mail to the proper channels: feedback@burningman.com and received a bounce message, so apparently no one is listening.

              Tell me, why isn't our feedback important?
              • Re: Worth noting....

                Fri, July 6, 2007 - 5:27 PM
                It's also worth noting that you posted your number prior to the Independence Day holiday. I've been here the entire time: Tribe is pretty quiet for the holiday, too.
              • Re: Worth noting....

                Fri, July 6, 2007 - 7:33 PM
                Oops, my bad, Tom, but it seems we're all in the familly. I'm sorry, but I didn't recognize you at first, but I've met you before.

                You're Thumper, a veteran from Camp Sunscreen. I've been camping there for the past few years. I'd love to get together with you at camp and have a meaningful dialogue with you about commerce and business at Burning Man.

                ;-)

                Cheers!
                • Even more worth noting...

                  Fri, July 6, 2007 - 8:33 PM
                  DaBomb, I hope you see the irony in your last few posts.

                  To paraphrase:
                  "Tom, you work for the LLC and I don't know anything about you, therefore I'm going to assume that your motives are suspect and spout a bunch of cynicism about your claims to "openness".

                  Oh...I've met you before? Well, maybe you're not so bad. Let's talk."

                  This illustrates to me that it is much easier to assume the worst about strangers than it is to put effort into turning a stranger into an acquaintance, or even a friend.

                  Although I would never be one to say what Burning Man is "about", I would think that prejudging strangers is a very UN-Burner thing to do (tm) while making an effort to communicate with strangers openly and honestly (especially strangers in a unique position to address your concerns) would be a very Burner thing do to (tm).

                  Eventually, if you work hard enough, there won't be any more strangers.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Even more worth noting...

                    Fri, July 6, 2007 - 8:51 PM
                    // To paraphrase: "Tom, you work for the LLC and I don't know anything about you, therefore I'm going to assume that your motives are suspect and spout a bunch of cynicism about your claims to "openness". //

                    I never said that, Brian. Please don't put words in my mouth or on my postings.

                    I said I knew him as somebody else, as "Thumper" not as Tom. Many people do the same to me when my birth name is used instead of my playa name and vice versa. It's a common mistake, and I apologized for it.

                    However, he still has no cred to me based on his profile. It tells me nothing about who he is. For all I know he could have been a TROLL!

                    (No offense, Troll!)

                    And Brian, I do everything I can to facilitate communication through www.BURNcast.net. Please give it a listen sometime.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Even more worth noting...

                    Tue, July 10, 2007 - 9:15 PM
                    Brian>> Although I would never be one to say what Burning Man is "about", I would think that prejudging strangers is a very UN-Burner thing to do...

                    Please remember DaBomb is human, and my experience is that she's has a little paranoia too, so it's not surprising she assumes a strangers motives are suspect.
                    On a personal experience, I feel I have been treated in quite an unburner way by her, so I feel your assessment is not out of the scope of reality.

                    "Love & Rockets" - not really.
                • Re: Worth noting....

                  Mon, July 9, 2007 - 11:17 PM
                  HI there. Yep, c'est moi! You, and everyone else from Camp Sunscreen ( or anywhere else! ) is welcome to track me down to have that conversation during the event, and I'll be certain to be dropping by CS to say hi to you and other folks.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Worth noting....

                    Tue, July 10, 2007 - 12:03 AM
                    Tom, it's worth noting (there's that phrase!) that I also had you very mixed up with Tom LaPorte, who is also involved with Burners Without Borders. My bad. I'm sorry.
              • Re: Worth noting....

                Mon, July 9, 2007 - 10:43 PM
                Hi, thanks for replying. There's been a lot of comments in the last few days, I'll do my best to answer them all.

                And yes, I'll listen. As my friend Chicken reminded me when I very first started this job, "be humble, you don't know shit."

                My background: I have been a professional environmental advocate for more than 15 years, and worked on the Hill in DC for eight years, always for environmental causes. After leaving that work in 2000, I became a freelance journalist, focusing on environmental and social justice issues for outlets as varied as Outside Magazine and the New York Times. I was the first US reporter to cover the island nation of Tuvalu's loosing fight with climate change ( www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2...ng1.asp), and my reporting on behalf of the Bushmen tribe of the Kalahari recently got me banned from Botswana ( tinyurl.com/yrt46n )

                I have attended Burning Man since 1997, and have volunteered every single day at the event since my 2nd. I was a Ranger for 10 years, and a LEAL ( Law Enforcement agency liaison) for several as well. I have worked with Media Mecca for four years, and as a member of the XRT (External Relations Team ) have given tours to various public officials for the last five or so years. I've also traveled with various LLC members to Washington, DC, and Reno, NV repeatedly to advocate for our continued use of public land.

                In September, 2005 I took a leave from work and went to Biloxi, MS to volunteer with many others doing Hurricane Katrina relief work, in the group that became known as Burners Without Borders, and returned back after the project was completed six months later, in April 2006. Since then, I've worked on several BWB projects, including the recycling last year of six semi trucks of lumber from the playa, which were then donated to Habitat For Humanity.

                I'm not certain what qualifications someone should have to be the Environmental Manager for Burning Man, and listening is certainly high on the list, but I hope the above will address your concern that I'm not someone coming in off the street with no background in the issues or community.

                About Burncast--i've not featured it because I'm not really familiar with it, and i hope you won't take offense--it's like when someone asks you on the playa "did you see that amazing XYZ camp!?" and you hadn't? I only moved to SF last summer, and still don't know a lot about the Burning Man community. That said, I will listen to it this week!

                And about the feedback@ address? I checked on that, and understand that it's only operational for about two months immediately after the event, while the staff is capturing as much input as possible before their year-end review. There are other addresses like complaints@ and questions@ which I know are read and replied to year round--you might want to point your concerns over there.

                I hope that answers your questions, and I'll try to be more brief in later replies.
                • Re: Worth noting....

                  Tue, July 10, 2007 - 11:28 AM
                  tom, can you tell me if your quote on page 16 of business magazine is accurate? Also was it your idea to invite non burner business to display thier products at burning man? there are many many questions you haven't answered and the annoying thing with phone calls are they are alot harder to document unlike the written word.
                • Re: Worth noting....

                  Tue, July 10, 2007 - 9:30 PM
                  Tom>> About Burncast--i've not featured it because I'm not really familiar with it.

                  That is quite surprising!
                  BurnCast has been going for well over a year, the first episode back in Feb'06 was even an interview with your partner!
            • I called

              Fri, July 6, 2007 - 8:24 PM
              like 5 mins ago and I am confident Tom will call me back.

              In the spirit of participation I would like to throw my 2 cents in...
              I read this whole thread and the article an hour ago. I just got off the phone with another friend five minutes ago. I was telling him about this Green Zone and how corporations were invited to show their stuff, without logos and labels, at the base of the man this year. When it was coming out of my mouth I was feeling like I was, for sure, telling a joke.

              But the thing is, there is a difference between marketing and what is happening in the Green Zone. And I don't see the Green Zone being some goofy trade show. I see it as more of a World's Faire.

              Sure, I can hop on the Internet and learn more about solar power. But I want to talk with solar power geeks about solar power. I want to learn about turning trash into fuel and I want to hear it from the mouth of Jim Mason or whoever.

              I went to NASA's Yuri's night a while back. I appreciated real NASA people talking to me about sludge thats a ka-gillion years old. There were NASA recruiters at Yuri's night. I didn't feel like I was being sold on the space program. You are an odd duck if everything you see makes you feel like you are a consumer. Get a grip.

              For me, Burning Man is much more about the awesome art I see and the awesome people who make it. I wish I were an artist, but I am not. I am a patron of the arts. Alternative energy inventions are art, too. God knows, the solar industry didn't make huge amounts of money, um, ever, even though their product totally makes sense.

              I am not suspicious that the BORG is getting rich off this nor am I concerned that the good people of Burning Man will be spoiled by alternative energy nerds talking to interested adults.

              I do wish this Green Zone was not at the base of the man. Is it, or did I just make that up?
            • Re: Worth noting this too.

              Fri, July 6, 2007 - 10:48 PM
              Tom.
              It is also worth noting that this thread is full of pertinent information about how many people feel about this “Green Pavillion” thingy.
              So your “criticism” based on the lack of telephone calls is misplaced.

              As the official Environmental Manager for BM 2007 please consider yourself informed of how this burner feels about this bizarre idea:
              It sucks !
              How the ORG handles the whole issue, the spin and the deception also suck.
              This whole “new & improved” commercial pavilion concept is not necessary, the event does not need it and the burners’ community does not need it.
              The unilateral decision made by the ORG, ignoring the expressed sentiment of many burners also sucks.

              So now you know.
              And if you wish to know more, or to respond, feel free to read more and post on this thread.

              The advantage of using this forum instead of your private phone is that here the dialogue is public.
              This thread also includes a written public record of the dialogue (unlike your cell phone)

              I’m Sorry, but I do not accept your accusation that I (we) do not effectively communicate to you our objections & indignation.

              But,
              If you still feel the need for this message to appear on your personal phone, I will be happy to text a copy of it to your cell phone.


              • Re: Worth noting this too.

                Mon, July 9, 2007 - 10:53 PM
                You're absolutely right ( about this thread being full of comments), and since posting "worth noting" I'm happy to note having received several calls and PMs, which I appreciate, and will reply to as quickly as possible.

                Thanks for your feedback. I won't try to change your mind any more, but I do hope that you'll let me know your thoughts on this topic after the event, and after you've seen the pavilion.

                And so you ( and others ) know, there will be approximately 30 or so displays/installations/art pieces in the Green Man Pavilion. I won't tell you how many of them are "commercial" because it will be interesting to see how many you and others think fit that category after seeing the pavilion. How about we meet back here in early September and have a little contest to see who guesses right? I hope I'm not coming across as flippant when I say that. Rather, it's an indication of how certain I am that we've protected the non-commercial nature of the event, while still gleening the information that will (hopefully) be of use and interest.
                • Re: Worth noting this too.

                  Mon, July 9, 2007 - 11:13 PM
                  Da Bomb - I believe if you go back through your email, we engaged in in a long personal response to you about a Home Page listing and why it's not an option for BURNcast, so I'm assuming you have read that. You've also asked about the Media Hits page and why BURNcast doesn't currently show up. The answer is there isn't currently a dedicated spot for such a hit: in its current iteration the media page only tracks printed/web press. The page is fed by our press tracking team's monitoring of a media tracking service's daily report, and that service only picks up print/web media.

                  The thing is, there's not really a page yet where we track and aggregate things like podcast mentions; you might notice that none of the TV shows or other radio broadcasts that you hear about out there show up anywhere on the site, either. There's not currently an efficient mechanism for tracking such hits, although I've done some research into TV tracking services; either way there's not currently a page devoted to audio or TV or movies - none of those kind of hits, though it would be really nice to have such a page if a method of maintenance could be worked out, since they happen more and more often. The Treehugger hit got tracked and posted because it interviewed one of our staffers; otherwise if it had just talked about the Green Man in a podcast, we might not even have heard about it or put it on the website anywhere unless someone brought it to our attention. This kind of press tracking is a pretty big task when you scale it out to a global perspective, so it may look like magic from the outside but is actually dozens of people working behind the scenes to bring you what you already see.

                  We've repeatedly put the Burncast in the JRS time and again, promoting it to our 40K plus subscribers, so I once again take exception to any comment that we're not supporting it, since we have done so repeatedly since the very start of your BURNcast. I feel like we've been big promoters of your voice and your show, and I'm really sorry if it doesn't seem like enough to you.
            • Re: Worth noting this as well

              Sat, July 7, 2007 - 12:07 AM
              //I figured at least ONE of the many people in this thread so concerned about what's going on this year would be in touch, to find out more, from the source, if you will.//
              (Tom)

              And I figured out that if you really want us to “find out more from the source” you’d post your genuine authoritative information here on tribe, for everybody to see, rather than making a derogatory statement like “people are more interested in stirring the pot, than finding out what's cooking?”

              So tell us, Tom, what’s cooking? What’s the inside scoop?
              And most importantly:
              What does “informing and educating” the burners’ community have to do with the fundamental raison d’être of the event?



              BTW,
              I can see that it would be nice to speak in person to a NASA hotshot scientist, or to a solar energy expert.

              But by the same token it would be “nice” to learn Japanese, or to meet a real King, face to face, and be allowed to ask any question, yet I don’t look to BMORG to provide me with access to either of these “nice” things.



              • Re: Worth noting this as well

                Mon, July 9, 2007 - 11:00 PM
                This comment raises more substantive issues ( ie: What does “informing and educating” the burners’ community have to do with the fundamental raison d’être of the event? ) that it is appropriate for me to answer--I'm not on the board of Burning Man, and that seems like their place to either speak to it or not.

                When you ask "what's cooking", I believe that's been addressed above: we're working to build a place where people can learn about different environmental issues, and some potential solutions to them. The 30 exhibits/displays/installations roughly cover the topics of energy, solid waste, transportation, water, food, community, engineering, and every single contribution has been framed through the prism of being an aesthetic experience first, with the substantive subtext coming later, should someone wish to learn more.

                So, for example, if you were to encounter a ton of carbon in the shape of a giant foot (carbon footprint, right?), that's an interesting, substantive, aesthetic object to encounter. And you can, as you do with all the other art on the playa, like it, hate it, or ignore it. With this piece, however, there will be some more information a person could learn should they choose to pay closer attention to the details of the piece.

                I hope that answers your questions, let me know if you'd like more ( though I'll say now, I'm not going to describe every piece, because surprise is part of the fun of the event, to me anyway).
                • The sounds of silence

                  Tue, July 10, 2007 - 4:38 AM
                  /// ( What does “informing and educating” the burners’ community have to do with the fundamental raison d’être of the event? ) that it is appropriate for me to answer--I'm not on the board of Burning Man, and that seems like their place to either speak to it or not. ///
                  (Tom)

                  So the board’s official spokesman does not answer this relevant question, and the board itself remains silent on this (fundamental) matter.

                  This starts to look a lot like government politics.
                  I, for one, am disappointed to encounter this unsavory phenomenon at BM.

                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: The sounds of silence

                    Tue, July 10, 2007 - 8:59 AM
                    // This starts to look a lot like government politics. //

                    Gypsy, Tom himself just came out on this thread and admitted "I have been a professional environmental advocate for more than 15 years, and worked on the Hill in DC for eight years..." He's also written for a lot of mainstream media outlets such such as the NY Times. He's very well skilled at what he does.

                    But here's the thing:

                    Professional "____________" Advocate + Washington D.C. = lobbyist

                    Whether lobbyists work for a large organization, a private individual, or the general public, their goals and strategies are the same. First and foremost, lobbyists must be adept at the art of persuasion, which is the mainstay of their job. They must figure out how to sway politicians to vote on legislation in a way that favors the interest they represent.


            • Re: Worth noting....this will be long

              Sun, July 8, 2007 - 10:28 AM
              "It's been five days since I last looked at Tribe, and since I posted my personal cell phone number inviting anyone concerned with the Green Man Pavilion or who's participating in it to contact me."

              I actually missed that post as this has been bothering me greatly. I'll be calling to air some concerns and inquire. I'd love to know what you think about the quote attributed to you on pg 16. Give me context, explain it to me as you see it. I'd listen to that!

              "Since I'm the Environmental Manager for BM 2007, and since I'd be likely to know more about this topic than most people, I figured at least ONE of the many people in this thread so concerned about what's going on this year would be in touch, to find out more, from the source, if you will."

              I don't even know what "environmental manager" means in all honesty. Placement director? Cause this shit is wayyyyy different, I doubt it's that alone. I couldn't find a definition on the website and do not recall seeing any disclosure of this position. Consultant? Almost doesn't matter. BM is a corp. Run it how ya'll will.

              The thing is that I can call the source of course but my concerns about this is that I suspect my (and many others fears) will only be confirmed. We have no tolerance for bs remember????

              Confirmed By spin. I'm not interested in the spin at this point but in what will happen. Since it is a org-driven change. It is the org's responsibility to find out what participants think BEFORE taking action. Not doing so speaks encyclopedic volumes about the aims of the org imo. Gives credence to what Law was concerned about for sure.

              Many who've posted have past issues with the org, many well-founded but lots not. I don't (thankfully) have that baggage. As a "virgin" this year to the man, though not a "new" person by any means to the community/the burn this issue is a deep one. For it speaks to hypocrisy. Shouts hypocrisy actually.

              Just reading the eplaya stuff alone from the pr company, tribe, the org's own releases of info, responses to people's actual legitimate concerns as well as re-reading the principles and trying to make this fit, I'm full of concerns. At one point ready to not go because of it. Not because it's a slippery slope but because it's straight up shady given Lexus of last year "sending" artists all the while telling people advertising/promotion/gift economy, decomodification, and many other inconsistencies. That the org doesn't think participants who care about the community should give input BEFORE making such a change - stinks. Stinks like horse shit. The so-called yahoos wont care. They don't come for the same reasons. The lack of input indicates to me that the paying yahoos are acceptable, arguably more so than committed burners. That sucks.

              "But, in all that time, not one private message. Not a single call.

              How, then, to interpret the silence? Might it be some people are more interested in stirring the pot, than finding out what's cooking?"

              I want it on record. Somewhere reachable by others. By phone - HA! yeah. Then they'll be a denial. By email....hmmm.....how different than dealing with it here? People have asked things that were never answered by the org or consultant to org (contractor) or anyone with any "source" cred.

              How's that for an explanation? I want it open, honest, and real....no matter the response. I'm sure lots on tribe only care about stirring whatever pot they find amusing. Not all of us.

              "Worth reflecting on. But not too long--I'm in Gerlach, and the playa's hot and dusty, time to go play outside. "
              Yeah, this is worth noting. Time to play. Your job is Environmental Manager. People are chosing their forum to air grievances or concerns. Time to play. Nothin wrong with that. Maybe all these people who DID NOT call (if I accept that as true) had the same motivation.
              It IS worth reflecting on and I don't disagree with your post. I do disagree with hypocritical preaching execs at ANY corporation.

              Peace,
              Tia
              • Re: Worth noting....this will be long

                Mon, July 9, 2007 - 11:13 PM
                I'd love to know what you think about the quote attributed to you on pg 16. Give me context, explain it to me as you see it. I'd listen to that!
                ---here is my earlier reply to a question about that, posted June 29th:
                bm.tribe.net/thread/adb2...be4136966c33

                I don't even know what "environmental manager" means in all honesty.
                ---it's an evolving role, one invented this year. I've been working on solid waste, transportation, energy, materials, education, media, and art projects, started writing burning man's first regular blog, organized a field trip to the solar learning institute for the BM staff so they could learn about a variety of issues, organized a series of lectures on a number of topics, and put together a very well received debate on the merits of carbon credits between Jim Mason and Dr. David Shearer of Cooling Man. There's not really a model to follow for this, so every two weeks there's been a open "Green Working Group" meeting at the Burning Man office, where ideas/suggestions/feedback could be kicked around and worked on. My job has been standing on the shoulders of people like Blue, Kachina Katrina, Camera Girl, the Earth Guardians, the AEZ and many, many others who've been working to "green the burn" for a long time, so any real credit for successes this year belongs to them.

                I want it on record. Somewhere reachable by others. By phone - HA! yeah. Then they'll be a denial. By email....hmmm.....how different than dealing with it here? People have asked things that were never answered by the org or consultant to org (contractor) or anyone with any "source" cred.
                --I hope the above, and my other replies helps. It's not an official part of my job title to reply to questions on tribe, so I'm doing it on my own time, and doing the best I can.
                • Re: Worth noting....this will be long

                  Tue, July 10, 2007 - 9:42 AM
                  Thank you Tom for your description of environmental manager. I discovered the other reply after posting it. It helps to clear up some confusion for me. I assumed the quote was somewhat out of context since most are done sound-bite style. I appreciate you taking the time to address the many comments in this and other threads on your own time.
            • Re: Worth noting....

              Wed, July 11, 2007 - 11:04 AM
              // Since I'm the Environmental Manager for BM 2007, and since I'd be likely to know more about this topic than most //

              Do you hear yourself, Tom? Is that how you invite dialogue? By being righteous and authoritarian?

              I'd like to hear from other burners and members of the community on your team who don't flash the badge of Environmental Manager and environmental lobbyist, but who have been working their ass off way before you got hired. People like Kachina Katrina and Blue.
              • Re: Worth noting....

                Wed, July 11, 2007 - 12:01 PM
                Question - where exactly are the solar cells going up in Gerlach and into what window does that power cord go? Who exactly will the power go to? Will it be used by the school or clinic? If in any way this provides power for the properties there owned or rented by the LLC, then it is just as if that company had written a big fat check.

                I do believe in supporting the companies that dontate to the causes I believe in - it is a shame that in this case we may be bending our beliefs and therefore profiting hippoctritically.
              • Re: Worth noting....

                Wed, July 11, 2007 - 11:39 PM
                geezloufreekinweez. poking into this thread for the first time in over a week.

                You're clearly a dedicated, loyal, passionate burner, who takes her participation to the community deeply seriously. Which is fantastic. But you come across here as unreasonably untrusting of someone you yourself have met. Now, granted, you've never met me, and I hardly ever ever post here. But I do know Tom. Known him & Andie both for many years. And they are absolutely 100% human--in all that entails, for both good & ill like anyone else. And I trust them. I can't think of anyone better suited to run this new environmental initiative than Tom/Thumper.

                Frankly, I'd be a lot more concerned if the org was cutting deals with Chevron. But that's obviously not the case. And sure, he's worked as a lobbyist & a journalist. And if people like him didn't do these things in the real/default world, then both our government & our dominant mechanisms for public dialogue (aka the media) would be even more fucked up than they are. And Burning Man itself might have died years ago.

                He's fighting the good fight, and I wish more folks here would give him and the other staff members the benefit of the doubt. Do they not produce an event you all know & love & thrive within? Have they not kept it going against tremendous odds for decades? They do that by interfacing with & negotiating between the realities of the default world-- which desperately needs greening-- and the ideals of the playa-- which IMHO will only benefit by the practical work folks like Tom are doing to greatly lessen the event's environmental impact.
                • Re: Worth noting....

                  Wed, July 11, 2007 - 11:54 PM
                  // But you come across here as unreasonably untrusting of someone you yourself have met. //

                  Not to ignore everything you wrote, but to get to the point:

                  Tom camped at our camp many, many, many years ago. At the time that I may have had a very casual introduction to him my state of mind may have been...been...been...(how do you say it on a public thread that the internet will keep in perpetuity for all your descendents to read?). Comprende?

                  Please talk to me off list about if you wish to discuss this further.

                  Otherwise, please note I have apologized for this blunder a few times now.

                  Tom, do you accept my apology?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Worth noting....

                    Thu, July 12, 2007 - 2:06 PM
                    <i>Comprende?</i>

                    Understood, and likewise my apologies if I sounded like I was making unreasonable assumptions about you, which was not my intention. It was late, I was a little cranky. But more, my intent was 1) to defend Tom's character 2) to point out that some of the deeds & jobs you seem to be suspicious of in his past can, in fact, be driven by a desire to speak up for & work for causes and perspectives that might otherwise go un- or under-represented.

                    That's all. Slippng back into uber lurk mode again.....

  • The Emperor is naked !

    Thu, July 5, 2007 - 6:06 PM
    For any of you who still have any doubts where all this is going, read the recent email message from Andie Grace titled:
    “BManUpdate:V11:#13: RESOURCES #2”

    If this is not commercial advertising, than I don’t know what is.
    • Re: The Emperor is naked !

      Thu, July 5, 2007 - 6:23 PM
      There is always an edition of JRS which is devoted to resources. It is a list of products and services which are not necessarily endorsed by the ORG, and it is compiled in one edition so that it is easy to ignore. Many people wonder, "Where can I get this ...?", and rather than having lists of places pouring through JRS year-round like so much raw sewage, they put the list in one convenient package so that the person who likes to seek out resources on their own can simply skip the edition.
      • Re: The Emperor is naked !

        Sun, July 8, 2007 - 4:14 PM
        you mean additions right - plural - cause I got two of these in the last couple of weeks.

        I use lots of these folks already when looking for something to buy. I'm glad it's "somewhere" out there. But really, in it's current form it is not a resource but a commercial. That's ok. But please don't think it wasn't a transparent ad guised as a "here comes the burn" and last minute prep of resources. Half the stuff is clothing, highly priced n all that. And it only reaches those who are subscribed so how effective is it????

        BM server could easily have this kind of info on the website. When it comes to my email though, I kinda like to limit "raw sewage".

        You can't skip it if you don't know when it comes or what it is. I scrolled waiting for something OTHER than an ad for a damn product.
        • Re: The Emperor is naked !

          Sun, July 8, 2007 - 5:45 PM
          This is from the JRS dated May 21:

          It's RESOURCES time! In order to keep our regular Jack Rabbit Speaks
          issues primarily focused on news and events, your Rabbits compile a
          separate "Resources" issue of the JRS once annually for your playa
          preparations. This is the place to find links to a wide variety of
          vendors and sources for your creative and survival needs for Black Rock
          City.

          This year's "Resources" issue is coming up! If you're a vendor carrying
          an item that people can use to prepare for Burning Man, send your short
          blurb NOW to jackrabbitspeaks@burningman.com AND INCLUDE "POST REQUEST -
          VENDOR ISSUE" in the subject line, pretty please.

          Of course this year, new "Green Man" ideas to help us all reduce, reuse,
          recycle, rethink, and repair WHILE we prepare are *especially* welcome!
          Got info on pick yards, scrap warehouses, sources for used stuff? Hit us
          up! Note: If you have preparation ideas that DON'T relate to buying or
          selling, but DO encourage reuse/repair/rethinking tips, please send
          those in ANYTIME and we'll share 'em any way we can. The RESOURCE issue
          is the place to share info about those things that many of us have yet
          to acquire in preparation for the week of surviving in the desert...but
          let's all do this with an eye toward making greener, better decisions
          this year!

          This isn't anything new. The resources edition comes out every year. And yes, this year there were two editions, likely because of a host of late entries, or whatever, but they were both clearly marked as Resource editions. If you read JRS regularly, you will see that they give a heads-up before they send out the resources edition, precisely so that those folks who don't care to read the resources edition won't waste their time scrolling down, looking for other news. The resources come from folks who are subscribed to the list, so they are people within the community.
          The map is not the territory. The web-site and the newsletter are not Burning Man. A lot of people find it helpful to know where they can purchase dry ice, gas, and, yes, over-priced clothing.
          How effective is it? It got to you, didn't it?
          Having this information on the web-site would certainly seem to me to be a bit more like advertising than the easily-disposed-of email that gets sent out once (or twice!) a year.
          I hope you come out, Tia, and enjoy the hell out of the event, but that is entirely up to you. And judging by the number of posts that you have made today to this list, it appears that you are looking for any reason not to enjoy yourself. Tomorrow is another day. Perhaps you will have a different perspective, and a little less steam under your hood. I say this with as much gentleness as I have in my heart. I hope that you will be able to hear that.
          • Re: The Emperor is naked !

            Sun, July 8, 2007 - 6:13 PM
            "Having this information on the web-site would certainly seem to me to be a bit more like advertising"

            It's been on the website for years. Anyone is free to send in a link and those list goods that the community can use will get posted. We've had a few discussions about if sex toys were something the community could use and though they may be they weren't posted.... www.burningman.com/preparat...ndex.html

            and it's not advertising, no one gets paid, it's a courtesy to help folks out not everyone is a seasoned camper or knows where to get the goods