The Spectacular Consumption of “True” African American Culture: “Whassup” with the Budweiser Guys?

Critical Studies in Media Communication Vol. 19, No. 1, March 2002, pp. 1–20

Eric King Watts and Mark P. Orbe

ᮀ—Spectacular consumption is a process through which the relations among cultural forms, the culture industry, and the lived experiences of persons are shaped by public consumption. This essay examines how the spectacular consumption of “Whassup?!” Budweiser advertising is constitutive of white American ambivalence toward “authentic” blackness. The essay argues that Budweiser’s hottest ad campaign beneﬁts from a tension between the depiction of “universal” values and the simultaneous representation of distinctive culture. The illustration of blackness as sameness and blackness as otherness arises out of conﬂicted attitudes toward black culture. Thus, Budweiser’s strategic attempts to regulate and administer “authentic” blackness as a market value also reproduce this ambivalence. Furthermore, as an object of spectacular consumption, the meaning of “authentic” black life and culture is partly generative of mediated and mass marketed images.

harles Stone, III, must have felt as Stone was “floored” when Anheuser- Cthough he had gone to sleep and Busch asked him to translate his film awoken in Oz. It was three short years into a 60-second commercial spot for ago that he captured on film candid Budweiser beer (McCarthy, 2000, p. moments among three of his friends, 8B). Stone was equally surprised when, edited them into an engrossing and out of respect for “realism,” he was visually stunning short film called allowed to cast those same friends from “True,” and used it as a video resume´. the short film for the commercial. It must have seemed even more surreal to be in Cannes during the summer of Eric King Watts is Assistant Professor in the 2000 to accept the advertising world’s Department of Communication at Wake Forest version of the “Oscar,” the Grand Prix University. Mark P. Orbe is Associate Professor and Golden Lion, and to hear his in the Department of Communication/Center friends’ greeting, now the world’s most for Women’s Studies at Western Michigan Uni- famous catchphrase, bouncing off cafe´ versity An earlier version of this essay was walls and rippling along the beaches— presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA (No- “Whassup?!” It must have been bizarre vember, 2000). The authors would like to thank to witness the usually stodgy Cannes the CSMC editors and reviewers for insightful judges joyfully exchanging the greet- commentary regarding the development of this ing in international accents—especially essay. The authors also express appreciation since the advertising elite admits to a toward Ms. Jenny Spain for research assistance. cultivated distaste for the popular (Mc-

SPECTACULAR CONSUMPTION MARCH 2002

Carthy, 2000). This admission, how- ing ritual. From this perspective, the ever, didn’t hurt the market value of secret to their popularity lies in their the Budweiser “True” commercials one utter familiarity. On the other hand, bit. To understand why this is so, one their appeal is linked to the notion that must explore the nature of spectacular the ads are “weird,”“oddball,” consumption. “strange,”“funky,” and “True”: that is, Let us begin our journey by consid- “authentically” black. In other words, ering this odd commentary offered up their appeal is also predicated upon by Advertising Age’s ad review staff after their unfamiliarity. Stone’s commercial aired during the Due to its parsimony, this dichotomy 2000 Superbowl: “A bunch of friends, between the universal and the distinc- all black, greet each other with exagger- tive is misleading. If we perceive the ated ‘Wuzupppppppp?’ salutations that ads as “universal” expressions of mas- sound like retching. [Our] staff, the culine communal norms, they speak in single whitest enclave outside of Latvia, a single, unproblematic voice. They doesn’t quite get it but suspects it is say, in essence, “I love you, man!” This very funny . . . ” (Garfield, 2000b, p. 4). time, the men just happen to be black. But, what’s so mysterious? These guys Thus, through a projection of “positive simply greet each other— over and realism” (Cassidy & Katula, 1995), the over—with what has been described as “Whassup?!” ads testify to increased a “verbal high-five” (Farhi, 2000, p. diversity in television commercials and C1). Also of interest is the fact that USA to African American male affection. Today’s Admeter rated the commercial Understood in this manner, the Ameri- as the Superbowl’s most popular; and can ideal of human universalism is af- so let us turn the question on its axis: if firmed through a display of black frater- Advertising Age is correct and the humor nal care made familiar. Indeed, is baffling, why is it so popular? After according to David English, an An- all, the ad is about four friends sitting heuser-Busch vice-president, the “uni- around doing “nothin’[but] watching versal” appeal of the short film allowed the game, having a Bud”? How is it him to look “past the color of the guys that a series of commercials about four to the situation of guys being guys, and African American friends can be simul- the communication between friends” taneously “pretty out there,” incompre- (Heller, 2000, p. 11). Hence, in at- hensible, and yet enjoy such massive tempts to explain the soaring market appeal so as to become Budweiser’s value of these ads, Anheuser-Busch hottest ad campaign ever? (Adande, spokespersons often reference their 2000, p. D1). “universality”—that is, their colorless- The pop culture craze associated with ness. But, since the ads are also de- the “Whassup?!” guys leaves some ob- scribed as “cool” and “edgy,” and the servers dumbfounded and amazed. But “Whassup?!” guys are widely perceived others chalk up the frenzy to either the as the hippest group of friends on TV, universality of male bonding or to white they signify a pleasure principle orient- America’s continued fascination with ing white consumption of blackness black expression. On the one hand, (hooks, 1992). And so, it has occurred the commercials’ appeal is associated to us that this dichotomy between the with these ads’ depiction of a classic universal and the distinctive conceals a and commonly inarticulate male-bond- strategy. That is, references to the ads’ 3

CSMC WATTS AND ORBE

“universal” qualities obscure the way white American ambivalence concern- in which blackness can be made to ing race is inscribed in the ad. Third, behave in accordance with the Ameri- we discuss the results of focus group can ideology of universalism. By en- interviews that were used to gain in- couraging viewers to “celebrate” black- sight into “consumer” perceptions of ness conceived in terms of sameness, the the ads. We conclude with some obser- ad campaign deflects attention away vations about the on-going develop- from the ways in which blackness as ment of the “Whassup” line of commer- otherness is annexed and appropriated cials and the racial ambivalence they as commodity and hides from view the promote. fact that American culture exhibits a profound ambivalence toward “authentic” blackness (Entman & Rojecki, Spectacular Consumption 2000). and the Reproduction of the This essay seeks to explore this am- “Authentic” bivalence as it is reproduced and displayed through Budweiser’s “Whas- Treating the spectacle as a rhetorical sup?!” ad campaign. We argue that the construction, David E. Procter focuses his critical attention on how a spectacle ad campaign constitutes and adminis- as an “event” can be called forth by ters cultural “authenticity” as a market rhetors seeking to build community value. From the perspective of spec- (1990, p. 118). Drawing from the work tacular consumption, the intensity of of Murray Edelman, Thomas B. Far- the pleasure of consuming the other is rell and others, Procter posits the con- directly (and paradoxically) related to cept of a “dynamic spectacle” as requir- the replication and magnification of ing “a fusion of material event with the “authentic” difference. Moreover, the symbolic construction of that event and logic of spectacular consumption com- with audience needs” (1990, p. 119). pels us to pay attention to how the act From this perspective, the spectacle is of consumption transforms the relation a choreographed happening like a cel- between the consumer and the con- ebration or memorial that brings to- sumed. We contend that as the market gether the interpretive materials for economy seeks to regulate and inte- rhetorical praxis. As Procter’s analysis grate “authentic” difference, white demonstrates, the critic is charged with American ambivalence toward black- the task of determining how rhetoric ness is paradoxically both assuaged by transformed the material event into a its “universality” and heightened by its spectacle and how the spectacle builds distinctiveness. This conflicted set of community. Our understanding of impulses and feelings can be witnessed spectacle both converges with and di- in the commercials, disclosed in corpo- verges from this account. We share rate strategy, and observed in focus Procter’s concern with the constructed group interviews. Hence, this essay pro- nature of spectacle and the capacity of ceeds in three stages: first, we explicate interested persons to shape it. In par- what we mean by spectacular consump- ticular, we find useful Procter’s under- tion, relating it to the commodification standing of spectacle as a mediated of the “Whassup?!” guys. Second, we phenomenon that transforms persons’ provide an interpretation of the origi- lived reality. However, we do not con- nal commercial so as to show how ceive of spectacle as an event or as a 4

SPECTACULAR CONSUMPTION MARCH 2002 happening, with a clearly defined be- marketable. Thus, these processes mag- ginning, middle, and an end; here, the nify—that is, make spectacular—previ- spectacle is a condition—a characteristic ously private worlds and the persons of our collective being. It must, there- who inhabit them. fore, be understood ontologically as Spectacular consumption is, thus, well as rhetorically. structured in a fashion different from Guy DeBord (1983), in Society of the traditional spectacle; its rhetorics re- Spectacle, explains that as social systems spond to cultural variables in diverse shift from industrial to post-industrial patterns oriented by the logic of sign economies they also undergo ontologi- value. A key rhetorical resource in the cal change. Rather than being orga- economy of spectacular consumption, nized around the exchange of goods then, is the paradoxical tension be- based upon actual use values, the spec- tween the “different” and the widely tacle establishes mass consumption as available. On the one hand, the plea- a way of life. When sign value replaces sure of consuming otherness is ad- use value as the foundation of being in vanced by the Other’s uniqueness. On this fashion, human beings need no the other hand, in a mass consumer longer be concerned with discovering culture, commodity value rises to a the essence of Dasein, for the “true” sufficient level only when the Other nature of one’s being is up for grabs; it undergoes massive replication: “In a can be fabricated through appearances hyperreal culture, things are conceived (Best & Kellner, 1997; Ewen, 1988). In from the point of view of reproducibility, the society of the spectacle, even facets as we come to think something is real of one’s very body can be manufac- only insofar as it exists as a serialized tured in keeping with the latest trend. commodity, as able to be bought and Importantly, as Jean Baudrillard (1984) sold, as able to be made into a novel or has forewarned, a society’s capacity to a movie” (Best & Kellner, 1997, p. 102, replicate and manipulate forms of pub- emphasis added). The consuming lic culture forces upon all of us a virtual rhetoric of the spectacle thus promotes supersedure of the life world by the a contradiction as it seeks strategically signifiers that previously represented to reproduce on a massive scale the it. By destabilizing the ways through singularity associated with the “authen- which we ascribe meaning and value tic.” And yet these attempts persist be- to our experiences, the spectacle medi- cause the market value of such repro- ates our understanding of the world ductions escalates as long as the “aura” through a distribution of commercial- of “authenticity” can be maintained ized signs. Although this process may (Benjamin, 1984). not be conspiratorial (Hall, 1995), it is Clearly, cultural difference provides hardly random; the economics of the a particularly valuable resource for spectacle lead to the orchestration of spectacular consumption. The differ- meaning and value so as to realize the ences found among cultures provide a “moment when the commodity has at- resource of the new and the unfamiliar tained the total occupation of social that is particularly valuable because life” (DeBord, 1983, p. 13). As the those differences can be projected as spectacle structures both work and play, “authentic” even as they are commer- diverse aspects of life are made signifi- cially manufactured. In the case of the cant inasmuch as they can be made Budweiser ads, public consumption of 5

CSMC WATTS AND ORBE the ads triggers an overvaluation and (McCarthy, 2000a, p. 3B). Anheuser- fabrication of black bodies in living Busch frequently cites marketing re- spaces represented as “real life.” Spec- search that explains the ads’“cross- tacular consumption, then, describes over appeal” in terms of “universal” the process by which the material and friendship and “about being with your symbolic relations among the culture buddies” (McCarthy, 2000D, p. 6B). industry, the life worlds of persons, Discussing the fact that the target and the ontological status of cultural audience for this campaign was origi- forms are transformed in terms gener- nally composed of “Everymen” (Gar- ated by public consumption (Watts, field, 2000a, p. 2), meaning mostly 1997). white men, “Whassup?!” ad promoters The successful masking of the fact like Anheuser-Busch V.P. Bob Lachky that the “Whassup?!” guys are “onto- refer to focus group reviews where logically eroded” as cultural forms (Best “predominately Anglo” crowds report & Kellner, 1997, p.102), thus, extends that each of the ads “‘is a colorless beyond the texts of the ads themselves thing. . . . ’” (Adande, 2000, p. D1). to a series of related texts that together Similarly, after the first of the ads gar- constitute the on-going production of nered the Cannes top prize, Advertising spectacle. The “aura” of the “True” ads Age explained the accolade by saying is itself replicated through corporate that “America saw [the ad] not as an strategy linking public opinion, corpo- inside-black-culture joke but [as] a uni- rate discourse, and testimony from the versal expression of eloquent male in- “Whassup?!” guys themselves. Our un- articulateness” (Garfield, 2000a, p. 2). derstanding of “reality” is mediated The point that we are making here is through a matrix of imagery in the that these statements posit as prima spectacle. facie evidence for the existence of a One key dimension of these appeals color-blind society the fact that white is the way the “universal” dimensions folks claim identification with black (me- of the commercials enhance the “aura” diated) experiences. This claim seems of “authenticity” by making explicit reasonable and perhaps even promis- claims to “real life.”“Whassup?!” is ing when one understands that it is called a “common guy greeting,” (Farhi, premised upon the captivating depic- 2000, p.C1) and “Whassup?!” enthusi- tion of black male affection and cama- asts identify how the ads are said to raderie among real life friends. Com- reflect “the essence of what [men] do menting in the Washington Post, one on Sunday afternoons” (Adande, 2000, observer writes that the ads “provide a p. D1). According to Bob Scarpelli, the glimpse into a private world of four creative director of the advertising men at leisure. The joy each man ex- agency responsible for the campaign, presses in greeting and being greeted this doing nothing is labeled a “com- by his longtime friends is infectious, mon experience” that “resonate[s]” be- universal and, it seems, genuine” (Farhi, cause men can say, “‘That’smeand 2000, p. C2). This display is important my buddies.’” Although there is a gen- given the fact that television advertis- der gap with the ads, and men like ing rarely shows black affection (Ent- them more, many women nonetheless man & Rojecki, 2000; hooks, 1992). chime in by remarking “‘That’smy In spectacular consumption the link- husband, my boyfriend or my brother’” ages among the spheres of social life, 6

SPECTACULAR CONSUMPTION MARCH 2002 the culture industry, and public con- lessness and appeals to black cultural sumption allow dynamic discursive and distinctiveness. This discursive stress pragmatic interplays of influence; cor- becomes most acute as we explore the porate appeals to universalism thus en- contours and shapes of cultural “au- courage backing from the “Whassup?!” thenticity.” Anheuser-Busch now boasts guys as they recount their real life affec- that the ads enjoy mass appeal by vir- tions for an insatiable media. For ex- tue of their essential colorlessness; it ample, Charles Stone has repeatedly did not, however, begin conceiving of testified to the ads’“universal message the ads with this virtue in mind. Origi- of male bonding” (McCarthy, 2000B, nally, Anheuser-Busch wanted a “mul- p. 2B) by describing how the whole ticultural cast” (Farhi, 2000, p. C1). thing got started: “‘That’s really how This sort of marketing strategy has we talk to each other. We used to call rightly been understood as color-con- each other on the phone 15 years ago, scious because it arises out of a concern during our college years, and that was that an all-black cast would alienate our greeting. People say it seems real predominately white audiences (Ent- to them. It is real’” (Farhi, 2000, p. C2, man & Rojecki, 2000; Jhally, 1995). emphasis added). “‘It really wasn’t act- Additionally, Stone’s argument about ing,’” remarks Paul Williams, the casting his friends was assented to by “Whassup?!” guy with the big hair. “‘It Anheuser-Busch because its ad agency, was us being us’” (Adande, 2000, p. 2). DDB World Wide, was equally con- Scott Brooks, who plays and is cerned with keeping it “real.” Simi- “Dookie” in the ads, agrees: “You can’t larly, early in the campaign’s genesis, fake that kind of chemistry,’” he re- Stone thought that the conservative ten- marked during a promotional tour in dencies of the DDB would be placated St. Louis. “We’re really friends’” (Mc- if he altered the tagline, “True,” to read Carthy, 2000d, p. 7B). It is important “Right.” A vice president of Anheuser- to acknowledge that these messages Busch asked that he change it back to arise out of bona fide and caring rela- the more desirable “slang” term saying tionships among the men. that “‘True is cool’” (McCarthy, 2000c, This appeal to a putatively universal p. 9B). experience of male bonding is a con- Hence we can see that despite the flicted one, however, because it is made “universality” of the “Whassup?!” guys through black men in a white domi- life world, Anheuser-Busch and its ad nated culture, wherein the “universal” agency paid close attention to how has long been portrayed in terms of black culture should be shaped for con- whiteness. Thus, it is the very assertion sumption. The many media references of the “Whassup?!” crew inhabiting an to how “Whassup?!” is now the “cool- “authentic” (black) life world that helps est way to say hello” (McCarthy, 2000d, warrant the ads’ presumed transcen- p. 6B) and the “hip greeting of choice” dence of blackness for white viewers. (McCarthy, 2000c, p. 8B) testify to the We do not want nor need to become fact that African American cultural involved in a debate over whether forms are still the standard bearer of Western humanism actually allows for pop cultural fashion. Elijah Anderson such transcendence. We mean only to argues that the commercials represent demonstrate that there exists a discur- something “very specific to black sive tension between appeals to color- people” (in Farhi, 2000, C3). Similarly, 7

CSMC WATTS AND ORBE

Michael Dyson believes that they con- American life world out of which it vey the notion that “black vernacular” comes, where its intonation and its can be mass marketed without being spelling vary among its particular us- white washed (in Heller, 2000, p. 11). ages, Budweiser has suggested a proper Indeed, “authentic” blackness is more pronunciation for “Whassup?!” and has valuable to spectacular consumption copyrighted an “official spelling. . .w-h- than representations of blackness as a-s-s-u-p, although there’s an optional sameness precisely because it is more p on the end” (Adande, 2000, p. 2). anxiety producing. These technical measures are signifi- The energy created within the inter- cant, but they cannot overcome a fun- stices of spectacular consumption arises damental problem with consumption. in part out of the desire for white folk That is, the “image-system of the mar- to reconstitute their identities through ketplace reflects our desire and dreams, acts of black consumption (hooks, yet we have only the pleasure of the 1992). To this end, the 1990s seemed images to sustain us in our actual expe- to have normalized the market appro- rience with goods” (Jhally, 1995, p. 80). priation of black styles. “‘When they This is so if we conceive of Budweiser write the history of popular culture in beer as the good being consumed. This the 20th century,’” comments MTV’s is not the case in spectacular consump- Chris Connelly, “‘they can sum it up in tion, however, where the “Whassup?!” one sentence which is, white kids want- guys themselves constitute the prod- ing to be as cool as black kids’” (in uct. “And no one is better at making a Graham, 2000, p. D9.) This desire is complete, integrated promotional ef- undeniable, but as hooks so percep- fort than Anheuser-Busch; they’ve got- tively points out, white folk do not ten every ounce of publicity out of this want to become black (1992). The discur- that can be gotten” (McGuire, 2000, p. sive spaces of white privilege must be E1). maintained even as the consumption During a 10-day promotional tour of blackness intensifies. Spectacular during the summer of 2000, Scott consumption as a critical lens brings Brooks, Paul Williams, and Fred into focus how the energy from this Thomas completed their transforma- dialectic is harnessed by the replica- tions from product spokespersons to tion of specific features of the “authen- products—the “Whassup?!” guys. Bounc- tic.” ing from one Budweiser-sponsored me- Budweiser ad executives want the dia event to another, one reporter noted funkiness and edginess of the “Whas- a pattern in the form of a question: “how sup?!” campaign to become character- many times do they estimate that they istics associated with Budweiser. The stick their tongues out in a given promo- strategy is premised on the logic that tional day?” (McGuire, 2000, p. E1). This Budisa“colloquial beer” and fits in question can be modified and multiplied with the signs of the Other (Farhi, 2000, to illuminate the operations of hyperreal- C2). There are corporate and legal ity. How often does one have to repeat means to enable such identification. one’s background and display on cue For example, Anheuser-Busch has one’s genuine affection for the other guys trademarked the term “Whassup?!” for to maintain the “aura”? How can such its exclusive market use (McGuire, an “aura” even be cultivated through 2000). Moreover, unlike the African scripted “spontaneity”? How will the 8

SPECTACULAR CONSUMPTION MARCH 2002

“Whassup?!” guys stay “True” to black ambivalence helps mold public dis- expression given the contention made plays of “authentic” blackness. by Russell Rickford of Drexel Univer- sity that “once a phrase has become mainstream, black folks stop using it and “Watching the Game, Having go on to something else”? (McGuire, a Bud”: An Exploration of 2000, p. E1). Although the ad campaign Competing Strategies and may have already reached its saturation Visions of “True” point, spectacular consumption compels Consumption the continued replication of value and The Budweiser “True” commercial handsomely rewards its replicants. offers a setting in which gender and Charles Stone, III, is now a hot directing cultural performances are conditioned commodity who has a movie deal, a by sports and spectatorship; “masculin- contract with Anheuser-Busch for more ity” and “blackness” emerge as key commercials, and who gets meetings with themes in this world where men lounge actors like Dustin Hoffman. There is also in front of televisions and make seem- a lot of talk about a possible sitcom or ingly inconsequential conversation. Al- movie deal for the friends. At any rate, though the repose of these men is ca- their “Q-rating,” a TV recognizability sual, even languid, there is quite a bit quotient, is so high that Brooks, once a of action going on. This is so despite bouncer in Philadelphia, was forced to the fact that Stone is “laid back” on the quit his job. Also, Williams, a typically couch transfixed by the game on TV; out-of-work actor, has been able to sift he and his friends appear in this ad as through scripts and pay his rent for an both observers and players of a spec- entire year (McGuire, 2000, E2). tacular “game.” As actors in a commer- This media buzz translates into the cial the fact that they are being watched sort of “talk value” (McCarthy, 2000b, cannot be denied, but their perfor- p. 2B) that is partly responsible for mances display a heightened sense of convincing the Cannes officials to put awareness of the politics and character aside their misgivings concerning the of the white (consumptive) gaze. And ads’ popularity in the face of the “Whas- so, the ad testifies to competing vi- sup?!” guys’ spectacularity (Garfield, sions; the “True” commercial demonstrates a form of self-reflexivity that 2000a). In other words, the public con- focuses our attention on how the sumption of the ads and the actors is “Whassup?!” guys play a game in which constitutive of a commitment to repli- they recognize (that is, see) the ways cating image value. This commitment that their “play” is overvalued as “au- compels industry brokers like the thentic” cultural performance. The sig- Cannes folks to shift their values away nificance of these competing visions from rewarding artistic accomplish- comes into view as we integrate a tex- ment in advertising and toward recog- tual analysis with a critical lens that nizing ads “that work,” ads that sustain takes into consideration how spectacu- spectacular consumption (McCarthy, lar consumption is constitutive of im- 2000b, p. 2B). It also helps generate ages that mediate “real life” social rela- conflicted discursive performances that, tions. The “True” ad emerges as a through a critical reading of the first conflicted statement on how cultural “True” ad, further reveal how white commodities in the spectacle are made 9

CSMC WATTS AND ORBE self-conscious—that is, made aware of fies “exoticism.” On the other hand, how their appearance can maximize Williams wholly identifies with Stone’s their market potential. In order to keep tone and mood, endorsing a perfor- track of all of this seeing and being mance that testifies both to the timeless- seen, let’s begin with the opening scene. ness of the ritual and the character of Charles Stone sets the mood and their relationship. Williams and Stone tone for the first act of this three-part are watching the same game and hav- drama. Clutching a beer bottle and ing the same beer; their shared interest stretching out on a sofa he stares va- in the game does not testify to its impor- cantly into the lights of a TV; we faintly tance, but rather it reinforces the signifi- hear the color commentary of a game. cance of being there for one another dur- Unlike advertisements where the sports ing the game. Male bonding transmutes fanatic is caught up in the ecstasy and into black male affection as Williams agony of the sporting event, Stone is and Stone demonstrate their interper- nearly catatonic, not invested in the sonal comfort and communal linguistic sporting event, but tuned in neverthe- styles. less to the ritualistic character of masculine spectatorship. Put simply, Stone Williams: “Ay, who, whassup?” seems nearly perfect as the Sunday Stone: “Nothin’, B, watchin’ the game, afternoon “couch potato.” havin’ a Bud. Whassup wit’chu?” The telephone rings. Stone, without Williams: “Nothin’, watchin’ the game, diverting his gaze, answers the phone: havin’ a Bud.” “Hello.” The camera cuts to Paul Williams Stone: “True, true.” who signals for us both a departure This dialogue punctuates the epi- from how TV advertising depicts con- sode, signaling its end, and announces ventional male-bonding rituals ori- the following act. Fred Thomas enters ented around sports spectatorship and the scene and greets Stone exuber- an intensification of the mood and tone antly. “Whassup?!” With flaring nos- established by Stone. As we have al- trils and wagging tongue, Stone mir- ready noted, Williams was not initially rors Thomas’s performance. Williams considered for his own part in the ad asks Stone, “yo, who’s that” and Stone because Stone was told to find actors to directs Thomas to “yo, pick up the make up an ethnic rainbow. Since such phone.” Williams, Thomas, and Stone a cast would have been “diverse,” the share a joyful and comical verbal hug cast would not only collectively signify that ripples outward and embraces the ideal of American integration but it Scott “Dookie” Brooks. Stone’s editing would also allow white viewers to creates a visual montage of gleeful faces “identify with fellow whites, and reso- and a kind of musical tribute to the nate to their on-screen relationships group expression as each man’s voice with each other” (Entman & Rojecki, contributes to a shrilling chorus. As a 2000, p. 167). Williams is, therefore, a display of black masculine affection, violation of this ad strategy precisely the scene represents brotherly respon- because his speech and his look mark sibility. As Williams asks about Thomas him as other in a world of mainstream and as Thomas wonders “where’s marketing. Compared to Stone’s con- Dookie?,” viewers bear witness to black servative style, Williams’s Afro signi- men acknowledging their need and 10

SPECTACULAR CONSUMPTION MARCH 2002 care for the well-being of other black tions as a menace to white supremacy. men. And so, illustrations of black commu- This mutual affection is nonetheless nalism are shaped at the outset so that potentially troubling to white audience the anxiety and fear aroused in white members. Ever since the importation viewers can supercharge the consump- of African slaves, black solidarity has tion of black humor or black sex. Thus, been constituted as a threat to white the “aura” of “authenticity” that envel- power. Rather than being a detriment ops the familial relations among the to white readings of the commercial, men functions like lightning in a however, this well-spring of angst pro- bottle—a brilliant danger. White specta- vides a potent commercial resource, tors have their fears initially triggered specifically a resource for humor. At by “authentic” blackness, only to have the heart of humor is the release of them strategically vented by this self- repression, the release of repressed hos- parody of black community. Attuned tility in particular (Gruner, 1997). As a in this way, we can now hear the ner- corporate sign of control and regula- vous laughter of the Advertising Age staff tion, “Whassup?!” thus signifies the that “doesn’t quite get it but suspects comic relief of white angst. [that is, hopes] it is very funny. . .” (Gar- It is precisely the affective display field, 2000, p. 4). that is historically troubling to white This comic display is, therefore, para- consumption and most subject to be- doxical. As a “play” in the game, it ing made pleasurable and docile by points to the impossibility of replicat- the operations of spectacular consump- ing black cultural “authenticity” even tion (hooks, 1992; Madhubuti, 1990; as it relies on its presumed aura. It West, 1994). During this second act, gives the lie to claims of authenticity as the greeting balloons into a full-blown the “Whassup?!” guys distort their real caricature of itself and, thus, seems to life expression—making it “untrue”—for fit within a tradition of clowning and the benefit of the white gaze. Rather buffoonery (Franklin, 2000). The than be “real” for a white audience, the “Whassup?!” guys play a role that is, in “Whassup?!” guys are asked to play a part, constitutive of white ambivalence game that is predicated on hyperreal- toward “true” blackness. Entman and ity and hyperbolic black acting. More- Rojecki (2000) argue that 21st century over, since Scott Brooks has described white attitudes find comfort in imagin- the performance as “exaggerated,” this ing racial comity because it affirms play is understood as such by the American ideals regarding our capac- “Whassup?!” guys themselves (Heller, ity to all get along. But racial comity 2000, p. 11). But this observation brings can easily be turned into racial hostility up another related insight. If the sec- if whites are confronted with portray- ond act is a self-conscious play during als of race that challenge the presump- the game of spectacular consumption, tion of white privilege or articulate the the other two acts (the third mirrors the presence of wide spread racism (Ent- first) can be understood as the “Whas- man & Rojecki, 2000). Since the pre- sup?!” guys attempt to remain “True.” sumption of white privilege is tacitly That is, they are representative of how maintained through the promotion of the friends see themselves and a drama- black fragmentation (Lusane, 1994; tization of their collective understand- Allen, 1990), black community func- ing of how one makes the “game” work 11

CSMC WATTS AND ORBE for you. Indeed, Stone’s script tells us brings up yet another concern. White as much. imitation of black life alters the charac- In the first and third acts, Stone and ter of social relations among real folks. Williams are concerned with their col- Not only is the appropriation of black lective participation in a spectator styles profitable, the potential for racial ritual. The scenes are centered on the hostility—a function of white ambiva- black masculine gaze and cool pose lence—is preserved and cultivated by (Majors & Billson, 1992). Stone and stylish diversions (Kennedy, 2000). Williams testify to the fact that they are Spectacular consumption functions not just objects under surveillance here, as a capacitor for such ambivalence, but rather they are engaged in subjec- seizing its energies and releasing them tive (subversive?) acts of observation in planned microbursts directed at and consumption. Specifically, they are stimulating more consumption. White “watching the game, having a Bud.” In ambivalence toward blackness is, thus, the opening and closing acts of this replicated alongside consumable commercial, the tagline “true” signifies “blackness.” And although this opera- the shared understanding of how to tion nears the character of simulacra, self-promote and shape-shift for the we can feel its effects in our everyday purposes of “having a Bud,” of taking real world as black folk are told to advantage of Budweiser’s desire for “lighten up,” or when one’s refusal to (and fear of) their blackness and in the “play the fool” provokes racial enmity. process, maximizing their own market It may also be the case that “authentic” value. The second act is a festive and black affection emerges, however fleet- troubling demonstration of just such a ingly, as an expression that is poten- shared strategy, framed not by indi- tially redistributed among a wider circle of friends and communities as “True.” vidualism, but communalism. The col- But this is a question best left in abey- orful exchange among the friends dis- ance until we explore how “real” folks plays a joy that can still be seen and consume these images. heard despite the deformations, contor- tions, and amplifications. It is true that spectacular consump- Focus Group Insights: tion precedes even the first act and there- Diverse Perspectives on fore always already makes demands on the “Whassup?!” guys. From this Similar Themes perspective we can appreciate how pre- Thus far, we have explicated how viously private enclaves and persons spectacular consumption provides in- can be colonized and transformed into sight into the commodification of the sources for spectacular consumption. “Whassup?!” guys and have provided We should not be surprised that these a textual analysis of the original com- operations convert and multiply mercial. Throughout these discussions, “Whassup?!” into a series of commer- we have made reference to the various cialized signs that perhaps no longer ways that the marketing potential of say anything important concerning the commercials seems to be a func- black culture but are nearly self-referen- tion of the perceived “authenticity” of tial, standing for little more than their the “Whassup?!” guys. Consequently, own market value. But the spectacular we facilitated a number of focus group consumption of the “Whassup?!” guys discussions to gain insight into one gen- 12

SPECTACULAR CONSUMPTION MARCH 2002 eral research question: How are “Whas- ments. Again, participants were asked sup?!” ads consumed by different view- to record how, if at all, their percep- ers? As can be seen in the following tions of these commercials were differ- section, accessing divergent perspec- ent than the previous ones viewed. In tives in this manner proved invaluable addition, each person was asked to in strengthening our current critical express their opinions about the appar- analysis. In order to gain insight into ent marketing strategy behind the se- the various ways that television con- ries of “Whassup?!” ads. sumers interacted with the “Whassup?!” During a subsequent session, the commercials, we conducted a series of thirty-seven participants were ran- discussions with undergraduate students domly divided into seven small (5-6 at a large, Midwestern university. person) groups to discuss their reac- Specifically, we drew from one 300- tions to the commercials. Following level communication class whose con- these brief 10-minute discussions, a tent focused on issues related to race and larger 30-minute discussion of all par- culture. A total of thirty-seven people ticipants was facilitated in order to were involved in this aspect of our analy- clarify and extend those insights that sis. These persons were diverse in terms were included in the written responses. of their race-ethnicity (17 African Ameri- This larger discussion was unstruc- cans, 11 European Americans, 3 Asian tured in that participants were simply Americans, 3 Hispanic/Latino Ameri- asked to share some of their percep- cans, and 3 individuals who identify as tions of the commercials as discussed biracial) and gender (24 women and 13 via their individual comments and the men). Thirty six of the participants were small group discussions. 18 to 24 years of age. Our thematic analysis of the written and oral comments provided by the Our focus group discussions included focus group participants was guided by several steps. First, all thirty-seven par- three criteria outlined by Owens (1984): ticipants were shown four of the “Whas- repetition, recurrence, and forceful- sup?!” commercials featuring the ness. As such, the texts generated via “Whassup?!” guys in different settings. the written comments and larger group Participants were then asked to write discussions were reviewed for prelimi- down their responses to a number of nary themes. Subsequently, eight pre- questions, including: what was your liminary themes were reviewed until a initial reaction to these commercials smaller number of core themes (either now or at an earlier time)?; is emerged that we believe captured the the reaction the same for all of the essence of the participants’ comments. commercials, or do they vary from Through this interpretative reduction commercial to commercial?; and who process, three specific thematic in- do you think the target audience is for sights that enhance our critical analysis these commercials? Then, two spoofs of the “Whassup?!” guys were identi- of the “Whassup?!” commercials featur- fied. Each of these is explicated in the ing “Superheroes” and “Grandmas” remaining sections of this essay. were shown. These spoofs were not produced by DDBO or Anheuser- Busch, but we thought they might help Relating To The “Experience” give depth to our understanding of Almost without exception, the par- audience responses to the advertise- ticipants found the “Whassup?!” ads to 13

CSMC WATTS AND ORBE be highly creative, unique, and enter- can commented on how the ad tar- taining. In fact, bursts of audible laugh- geted the African American commu- ter filled the room while the commer- nity: cials were being shown. Initial written descriptions, as well as subsequent I’ve never seen these commercials before, group discussions, displayed a general but I’ve heard so much about them. I think consensus that the “Whassup?!” guys that Budweiser is trying to appeal to the had “hit a comedic nerve” with mass African American community because it audiences. However, a deeper level of has been known in the past as sort of a scrutiny in terms of why participants “hill-billy, ol’ boy brew.” These commercials bring BUD out of being just a “white felt the ads were so funny reveals some man’s beer” . . . Trust me, I used to cocktail interesting patterns. waitress—it is!!! Analysis of written responses provides insight into differences between It is significant that out of all of the non-African Americans and African European, Latino, and Asian Ameri- Americans. Nearly every African can participants she was the only non- American woman and man perceived African American to perceive the the “Whassup?!” commercials as tar- “Whassup?!” guys as targeting the black geted at young African Americans in community. Contrary to African general, and young African American American perceptions, nearly all other males in particular. Several commented racial/ethnic group members perceived specifically on the use of an all-black the ad as representative of male life cast, while others pointed to the ways experiences. Reflecting on our earlier in which the ads featured “the com- discussion of how “authenticity” func- mon language of black men.” Without tions, it became apparent that non- question, African Americans responded African American men related to the favorably to the ads because of the images of “guys”—not necessarily “authentic” ways in which black cul- “Whassup?!” guys—doing “guy things.” ture was represented. The black stu- One European American man shared dents tended to conclude that most that: non-African Americans would not relate to the content of the commercials. [I] had seen the commercials before and One African American explained in found[them] highly comical because I could no uncertain terms that: relate to the experience of having a beer and watching a game with my friends act- This ad, in particular, is [targeted] at young ing silly . . . The target audience of the Black men. The reason [why I say this] is commercial is clearly men in their early- because of the language and the style of the late twenties. commercial . . . these are not things that a man 35ϩ would do or phrases that a man ϩ By and large, non-African Ameri- 35 would use. They are things that young cans focused on the “universal” nature Black men do. of male bonding and sports. One Asian What the African American partici- American male agreed that the target pants did not anticipate, however, were audience was “anyone from the ages of the powerful ways in which non-Afri- 18-30 who drink beer,” but added, “yes, can Americans also identified with the the ‘what’sup’ guys are all black, but I depiction of the “Whassup?!” guys. For don’t think that blacks are the target example, only one European Ameri- audience because everyone loves those 14

SPECTACULAR CONSUMPTION MARCH 2002 commercials.” European American mercials were,” shared one biracial women were also quick to point out woman. Some, but certainly not all, of the lack of cultural specificity in the the African American participants felt behaviors of the “Whassup?!” guys. that the change in actors reflected a The quotation below is representative different target audience. This makes of several similar comments. sense given that the general consensus was that the initial ads that featured the I had never seen those actual commercials “Whassup?!” guys were targeted at but I had heard about them . . . all of my male friends acted like the men on the young African Americans. Many didn’t video a lot last year. My initial reaction is know how to perceive the spoof ads: that it was just a bunch of burly men “These characters don’t fit the voices. (weird) . . . Guys always have an inside The voices are very African American; joke or way of showing off to their buddies. the faces on the screen are very WHITE.” However, one African The contrast between how different American articulated how the ad did, racial/ethnic groups perceived the tar- in fact, continue to target African get audience of the “Whassup?!” com- Americans. She concluded that these mercials is of particular significance two ads “were a cool, creative way to given Anheuser-Busch’s explicit objec- target blacks . . . I still believe the in- tive to create a campaign that would be tent is to attract African Americans by appealing to predominately white audi- subliminally making fun of Whites.” ences. How, then, was it also able to In comparison, non-African Ameri- sell the “Whassup?!” guys to African cans saw these ads as extensions of American audiences who yearned for earlier “Whassup?!” commercials. One media displays of black culture? The European American woman described basic principles related to spectacular the spoofs as: consumption provide a schemata that makes available answers to this linger- . . .really funny! They are different because ing question. As explicated in the next you’ve got these “white” people trying to thematic section, we argue that market- be “black” . . . That’s the perception I got ing strategists are able, ironically, to anyway. I also think that that’s why they negotiate such tensions by emphasiz- were so funny—because it was outrageous ing the cultural “authenticity” of the in that you never should see that. “Whassup?!” guys. Another European American woman extended these comments and impli- (Re-)Emphasizing Cultural Authenticity cated associations of stereotypical behaviors and subsequently connected As stated earlier, responses to the them to the perceived target audience: initial “Whassup?!” ads were over- whelmingly positive. However, when They are funny because they took two participants were asked to comment groups: Superhero cartoons and elderly on their perceptions of two spoof com- white women who don’t normally talk mercials, their reactions were quite var- LOUD and made them do the same dialogue. Neither of the two groups were the ied and significantly different than those target audience: The target audience re- based on the initial ads. Specifically, mained the same. many commented on how the ads “didn’t make sense.”“I really don’t As had the African American partici- know what the intent of these two com- pants, several of these European Ameri- 15

CSMC WATTS AND ORBE cans understood how these parodies gathering. Despite their continued ef- extended earlier attempts to make use forts, though, they are never able to of the “authentic” to attract a large capture correctly the authentic greet- audience. Interestingly, it appears that ing. Again, this spoof enhances the non-African Americans continue to “Whassup?!” aura by illustrating that identify with the “universal” appeal of the coolness associated with it, and the “Whassup?!” guys in direct relation with black culture generally, is virtu- to seeing how absurd it could be when ally impossible to replicate. In this way, “uncool” people try to imitate them. In the commodity value of the image that other words, “we” (those of us who are is already “owned” increases by virtue “cool”) can continue to relate—or even of its “uniqueness.” strengthen our relationship—to the “Whassup?!” guys because of the perceived distinction between “us” and An Unconsciousness of Commodiﬁcation those who are spoofed. Several key ideas emerge as central The ﬁnal questions posed to partici- to the way the spoofs reinforce the pants in our focus groups related to original advertisements. First, from the their perceptions of the marketing strategies that manufactured the “Whas- perspective of non-African Americans, sup?!” ads. Most participants felt that the spoof ads appear to strengthen the the advertising campaign was highly “universal” appeal of the “Whassup?!” effective, with African Americans focus- guys; this is accomplished by featuring ing on the inclusion of the black com- the absurdity of attempting to repro- munity, and non-African Americans duce its “aura” with different faces and applauding the use of “humor [that in different settings. Second, for Afri- could be] enjoyed across racial barri- can American viewers the spoof ads ers.” Across racial and ethnic groups, strengthen the “authentic” nature of however, several participants ques- the “Whassup?!” guys for a very simi- tioned what the “Whassup?!” ads had lar reason: the ads hint that white (un- to do with selling beer. One African hip) characters can’t “really” imitate American woman commented that “the black culture. As described earlier, one strategy was humorous and attention- of the basic tenets associated with spec- getting, but the product could have tacular consumption is that the plea- been emphasized more.” What seemed sure of consuming otherness is ad- to be just below the level of conscious- vanced by the Other’s uniqueness. ness for some participants was the idea Perhaps these spoof ads help to re- that the “product” was not the beer, establish the unique nature of the but the “authenticity” of the “Whas- “Whassup?!” guys by parodying at- sup?!” guys. This critical understand- tempts to serialize the authentic. This ing, however, was not lost on all partici- point is best captured in another spoof pants. Several participants discussed ad that was never aired but is available the increased exposure that the com- at the adcritic.com website where it fre- pany got in light of the commercials’ quently is listed in the top ten. This popularity and effective use of humor commercial features a group of young in associating their product with the European American friends who at- “in-crowd.” In fact, one Korean/Ameri- tempt to use “Whassup?!” as a means can woman applauded Anheuser- to display their “coolness” at a summer Bush’s marketing creativity: 16

SPECTACULAR CONSUMPTION MARCH 2002

Budweiser knows how to capture their au- in relation to a previous Budweiser dience’s attention by using humor. I think advertising campaign: [the ads] are effective because they’re catchy and people are always talking about I’ve seen these [“Whassup?!”] ads before. their commercials. As to how much beer My initial response to these was that they they sell, I’m not sure because I don’t were pretty funny. When I see them now, I drink; however, I think because people still can’t help but laugh. These ad wizards think the commercials are cool, they might at Budweiser out-did themselves this time. think their beer is too. I love these guys—a lot better than the frogs. The marketing strategy is GENIUS. While some participants made this I am a Bud man. It is the King of Beers. connection, only one person talked spe- They’ve won my vote. cifically about the historical pattern of This comment is especially didactic as the dominant culture co-opting black it unwittingly brings to the surface the cultural artifacts for profit. Conse- paradox of spectacular consumption. quently, comments that focused on the The commodification of the “Whas- “Whassup?!” guys (e.g., “they are hilari- sup?!” guys is perceived from the per- ous!!!”) were few; more significant at- spective of other Budweiser fabrications. tention was paid to the “genius” of The realization that, philosophically Anheuser-Busch. In this regard, it was speaking, a fabrication cannot be “au- the corporate marketing team—and not thentic” in the way that the focus groups the “Whassup?!” guys—that was given articulated is discouraged by the simulta- most of the “credit” for the success of neous replication of the “aura.” This con- the ads. One African American woman, tradiction can be apparently maintained, for instance, praised “the folks at BUD in part, because “real life” social rela- [for] using an everyday phrase for some tions are themselves always already me- and turn[ing] it into a million dollar diated in the spectacle. commercial.” Comments lauding An- heuser-Busch’s ability to use humor to market their products were consistent. Conclusions Interestingly, the “Whassup?!” guys— Throughout this essay we have ar- despite the central role that Charles gued that the “Whassup?!” ad cam- Stone played in the development of paign is constitutive of an ambivalence the ads—were seen as pawns strategi- in the white imagination regarding “au- cally deployed by corporate culture. thentic” blackness. Idealism concern- Consistent with the operations of spec- ing racial comity interpenetrates racial tacular consumption, the focus groups pessimism in such a way as to produce believed that the “authenticity” of the discursive tensions within cultural arti- “Whassup?!” guys was at once “real” facts that seek to sell “race.” In the and manufactured for mass consump- “Whassup?!” campaign, this stress is tion. actualized within the discursive con- One final point of critical analysis tours of “authenticity.” In terms of de- crystallizes the powerful ways in which noting “universalism” or “sameness,” the “Whassup?!” guys were commodi- the ad campaign is perceived as deliv- fied by mass mediated marketing. ering a male-bonding ritual with which Within his written responses, one bi- “everyman” can identify. Conversely, racial man (Filipino/European Ameri- “authenticity” also implicates distinc- can) described his reaction to the ads tive black style and culture. The “True” 17

CSMC WATTS AND ORBE ads explicitly reference a notion of real- tions but it cannot (and is not meant to) ism that holds in tension differences displace the significance of distinctive associated with how spectators see the black culture. In the white imagina- “authentic” as either colorless or color- tion, such a tribute is replicated just as ful. Moreover, we contend that the carefully and consumed just as vora- operations of spectacular consumption ciously as the “authentic” blackness replicate and amplify this ambivalence that it obscures. because the anxiety inscribed in it en- Our textual analysis of the original hances the market value of black imag- “Whassup?!” commercial demon- ery. strated how the ad is made up of com- Our focus group analysis demon- peting consumptive impulses. Stone’s strates how white consumers overtly script is itself a strategic response to the recognize the “universal” character of operations through which he and his the “authentic” masculine ritual while friends were being commodified. The tacitly appreciating the ads as (black) ad vectors in two directions at once; it ultra-hip. We posit that this cultural satiates and mollifies white desires and dissociation is a sign of how the white fears regarding “real” black brother- imagination appropriates blackness as hood by turning the greeting into a commodity while denying such appro- cartoon version of itself. It also ges- priation. Blackness here intensifies the tures toward a site of cultural integrity pleasure of “eating the other” (hooks beyond the shouts and shrills of the 1992, p. 21) and brokers an escalation corporate sign of “Whassup?!” In the of the commodity value of the “Whas- first and third acts of the commercial, sup?!” guys. Such “pleasure” is a symp- Stone and Williams “have a Bud” and tom of ambivalence. But also white observe how the spectacular game is ambivalence toward “true” blackness forces a suppression of the character of played. Their subjective and consump- such consumption precisely because tive acts help reshape the conditions of its conscious recognition would turn their commodification because they the white gaze upon itself. That is, serve as a narrative frame for the sec- white consumers would be compelled ond hyperbolic scene. Understood to interrogate the reasons why consum- from this perspective, the ad begins ing Otherness as a historically culti- and ends with a commentary on how vated taste is predicated on white su- to “keep it real” while playing the premacy. Since this sort of public “game.” deliberation may reduce the angst The game continues. While there white people experience when faced have been several interesting “Whas- with blackness, spectacular consump- sup?!” spin offs, the “True” ad that tion seeks to prefabricate the condi- appeared during the 2001 Superbowl tions in which such denial is an effect critically dramatizes the problem that of public consumption itself. This is spectacular consumption poses for crit- why the replication of white ambiva- ics who seek to conceive of “reality” lence toward blackness becomes a cen- and “power” in conventional terms. As tral facet of these consumptive pro- a replica of the original commercial, cesses. Endorsing the “universality” of the ad reintroduces us to notions of “colorless” male bonding pays tribute cultural authenticity and surveillance. to American idealism about race rela- This ad, however, features two white 18

SPECTACULAR CONSUMPTION MARCH 2002 guys and their brown friend and repre- of cultural commodity privilege. But sents the inversion of cultural cool. popular culture dominance is not the The phone rings. “Brett,” looking only significant issue. While the “Whas- rather stiff while watching TV, answers sup?!” guys are watching their imita- the phone: tors fail, the “What are you doing” guys are keeping an eye on fluctuations “This is Brett.” in the value of consumer culture in “What are you doing?” general; they are “watching the market “What are you doing?” recap.” “Just watching the market recap, drinking Such competing visions of “authen- an import.” ticity” and power are provocative; in “That is correct. That is correct!” spectacular consumption, “real” cultural value is produced through both A knowing audience is immediately perspectives. An audience familiar with clued into the fact that this conversa- the “Whassup?!” guys can share in their tion is “lame” and even strange com- repose even as it identifies with the pared to the familiar rhythm of the “What are you doing” guys’ focus on “Whassup?!” guys. Indeed, the fact that capital investment. Critics are encour- these new friends are drinking im- aged to see that the ad, in part, repre- ported beer signifies a kind of foreign- sents the notion that spectacular con- ness. “Chad” (who is brown) enters car- sumption itself is cool. After all, as rying a tennis racket and exclaims arbiters of good taste the “Whassup?!” “what are you doing?” and “Brett” directs him to “pick up the cordless.” guys are transfixed by the other guys’ The friends exchange their cumber- spectacle. Thus, their consumptive hab- some greeting with comedic gusto. De- its stand in for ours and culminate in spite the fact that the scene is silly, we increased market value for “authentic” would like to note some serious impli- black culture and any of its manufac- cations. Viewers who are knowledge- tured opposites. This process is also able about “Whassup?!” cool are en- paradoxical because it relies on the couraged to ridicule the “What are you notion of cultural essentialism (like doing” guys. Although signifying eco- “true” blackness) even as cultural nomic privilege, they are marginalized boundaries become more permeable as un-hip (and, perhaps, un-American) and lived experiences become more “wannabes.” Moreover, the “What are malleable. you doing” guys seem unaware that But this dialectic brings up the char- their cultural performance is out of acter of white American ambivalence fashion. At the end of the commercial, once again. The “Whassup?!” guys’ Fred Thomas and Paul Williams are consumptive gaze is energized by rep- shown having a Bud and watching the resenting the “What are you doing” “wannabes” on TV. Here, the ad char- guys as “inauthentic” and “foreign” acterizes the black male gaze as central laughing stocks. In so doing, however, and authoritative as the “Whassup?!” the ad constitutes “authentic” black- guys look at each other with facial ness as authoritative and, thus, perpetu- expressions that say, “these guys can’t ates the threat. So, not only does the be for real”; their capacity to sit in ad’s humor help to alleviate such angst, judgment over the “wannabes” places but the ad seems to mediate this dan- “authentic” black culture in a position ger by placing the “What are you do- 19

CSMC WATTS AND ORBE ing” guys’ economic power over against this perspective, the culture industry the cultural allure of the “Whassup?!” does not dictate forms of consumption; guys. The discursive space of white nor does an agent determine her own capitalist power (despite the fact that image; they are both altered by the “Chad” is brown) is tacitly maintained ways that forms are consumed. The by the reproduction of this ambiva- relations among the industry, the life lence. worlds of persons, and cultural forms The schemata of spectacular con- cannot be adequately understood as sumption not only allows us to explore characterized by exchanges of meaning how image value is manufactured and and value; they are more precisely magniﬁed, but also to perceive how meaning and value transfusions. And persons and life worlds are transformed so, we contend that the “True” charac- in terms of values generated by their ter of the “authentic” in the land of public consumption. Hence, the critic is steered away from an overemphasis spectacular consumption is neither an on forms of autonomy, individual or ontological given nor a semiotic project. cultural; such autonomy is not wholly Rather, it is a decentralized and local- denied, but symbolic forms are under- ized achievement based only in part stood as constitutive of substances and on one’s lived experience, now under- of relations that are shaped by the stood as a function of how ways of life character of public consumption. From are commodiﬁed and consumed. References

Adande, J. A. (2000, January 31). Couch potatoes capture a mood. Los Angeles Times, D1. Allen, R.L. (1990). Black awakening in capitalist America. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. Baudrillard, J. (1984). The precession of simulacra. In Wallis, B. (Ed.), Art after modernism (pp. 253-281). New York: The Contemporary Art Museum. Benjamin, W. (1984). The author as producer. In Wallis, B. (Ed.), Art after modernism (pp. 297-310). New York: The Contemporary Art Museum. Best, S. & Kellner, D. (1997). The postmodern turn. New York: Guilford Press. Cassidy, M. & Katula, R. (1995). The black experience in advertising: an interview with Thomas J. Burrell. In Dines, G. & Humez, J.M. (Eds.), Gender, race, and class in media (pp. 93-98). Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications. Debord, G. (1983). Society of the spectacle. Detroit: Black and Red Press. Entman, R. & Rojecki, A. (2000). The black image in the white mind: Media and race in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ewen, S. (1988). All consuming images: The politics of style in contemporary culture. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Farhi, P. (2000, March 14). Whassup? Glad you asked; Budweiser’s ads tap into male bonding rituals. Washington Post, C1. Franklin, C. (2000, June 1). Letter to the Editors. Advertising Age, 6. Garﬁeld, B. (2000a, June). Budweiser has all Cannes asking whasssuppppp? Advertising Age. Available: www.advertisingage/adreview.com. Garﬁeld, B. (2000b, January). Superbowl ad standout? Whatever.com. Advertising Age. Available: www.advertisingage/adreview.com. 20

SPECTACULAR CONSUMPTION MARCH 2002

Gruner, C. R. (1997). The game of humor: A comprehensive theory of why we laugh. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Hall, S. (1995). The whites of their eyes: Racist ideologies in the media. In Dines, G. & Humez, J.M. (Eds.) Gender, race, and class in media (pp. 18-22). Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications. Heller, K. (2000, March 19). “Whassup?” A new career; Budweiser ads turn four black friends into major pop icons. Houston Chronicle, 11. Hooks, b. (1992). Black looks: Race and representation. Boston: South End Press. Jhally, S. (1995). Image-based culture: Advertising and popular culture. In Dines, G. & Humez, J.M. (Eds.) Gender, race, and class in media (pp. 77-87). Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications. Kennedy, D. (2000). Marketing Goods, marketing images: The impact of advertising on race. Arizona State Law Journal, 32, 615. Lusane, C. (1994). African Americans at the crossroads: The restructuring of black leadership and the 1992 elections. Boston: South End Press. Madhubuti, H.R. (1990). Black men: Obsolete, single, dangerous? Chicago: Third World Press. Majors, R. (1992). Cool pose: The dilemmas of black manhood in America. New York: Lexington Books. McGuire, J.M. (2000, June 28). Whassupp?! You ask? St. Louis Post-Dispatch, E1. Owen, W. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 274-287. Procter, D.E. (1990). The dynamic spectacle: Transforming experience into social forms of community. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76, 117-133. Watts, E.K. (1997). An exploration of spectacular consumption: gangsta rap as cultural commodity. Communication Studies, 48, 42-58. West, C. (1994). Race matters. New York: Vintage Books.