Critical Studies in Media Communication Vol. 19, No. 1, March 2002, pp. 1–20 The Spectacular Consumption of “True” African American Culture: “Whassup” with the Budweiser Guys? 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- Copyright 2002, National Communication Association 2 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 “authen- tic” 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 dis- played 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.