Thursday, April 12, 2007

Do we really need trends dictated to us?

When I first started scrapbooking, I wielded my craft with a blissful ignorance of what was "in" and what was "out". I used what felt good and the ideas were plenty free flowing. I would actually sit down and do 3 or 4 pages in a night and I would be pleased with the work I was doing. My sole focus was on doing what felt right to me.

My ignorance of scrapbooking magazines and the online arena allowed me to find comfort in doing what I liked and following my own aesthetics prerequisite.

Then I discovered the online world. Shortly after that, I discovered magazines. Shortly after my discoveries, scrapbooking became a bit more difficult. I discovered that there were trends and styles of scrapbooking. The idea of publishing capabilities was introduced to me, the prospects for being a part of a design team entered my sphere of conscious reasoning. Suddenly, there was a right and wrong way to scrap (despite what people were telling me, the magazines were sending an all together different message) and I wasn't doing it right.

It took 2 years to break away from the sticky grasp of the trends and I have no desire to venture back in that direction. That is part of the reason why I chose to walk away from Design Teams and Publishing. I am much more comfortable doing my own thing and if that means that I only scrap for myself and my family, then so be it. Recently, I walked away from magazines because what they were offering by way of inspiration was really trend pimping...and my whoring days were over. Now I seek my inspiration through galleries and my past work. Now, I'm finally happy again.

***********************************************************************
I don't like trends. Well, I don't mind trends that are left to their own volition. Unhampered trends burn out and move on. Unfettered trends exist without denouncing the existence of past trends and those who don't choose to follow the trend. Those are the only trends I can stomach.

The trend wave of scrapbooking is anything but free flowing and natural. The way that the magazine editors select one person's way of scrapbooking and then commence to shove it down the consumer's throat is disconcerting at best. When I first saw Elsie's work, I thought it was fun, whimsical and somewhat of a signature to her way of viewing the world. That's it. I didn't want to adopt it, I didn't want to pull aspects of it into my own work. I wanted to appreciate her unique style and move on. CK had other plans in mind. Suddenly her work was labeled and featured and declared the hottest thing. It was the hottest thing and the masses ran with it until the industry was over saturated with Elsie-like layout offerings. The magazines gobbled up the 'freestyle' work that was being submitted (mind you by the same people that they'd been publishing before freestyle came on the scene) and the viewing public perceived that if they wanted a shot at 15-seconds of fame, they'd have to step up to the plate. Suddenly scrappers were 're-inventing' their style to resemble the latest trend. Some succeeded and they turned out spectacularly designed layouts, others weren't so lucky.

Why do we need this? Why do the magazines have to pimp trends to us? Why is it that one person can present a new way of doing things and it becomes the current style?

I would be much more accepting of a magazine that featured, for the most part, different styles of layouts, from different scrapbookers first and foremost. This magazine could feature the unique styling of a scrapbooker like Elsie in an "Outside the Box" section that would encompass a relatively small portion of the magazine. By doing things this way, the various styles of scrapbookers would still be able to gleam a little industry acceptance. There would be little need for people to 're-invent' themselves with every new thing because there would be a general acceptance of all types of scrapbooking styles. The public would be able to see the works of someone who is doing things a little 'differently' and decide whether they can take anything from it. If a trend is going to catch, let it be because a majority of the viewing public liked what they say and chose to emulate it, not because a magazine has declared that we should all strive to "be like Mike".

The way that things are going now in the industry has resulted in an over saturation of the products market because the manufacturers are trying to keep up with the dictated trends. Everyone has to have some sort of flourishing in their product offerings. Everyone has to offer buttons in their product lines. Something has to be made of chipboard. Something has to be a rub on for of product. The industry lives, breathes and poops the trends, whether we all follow them or not.

The dark side of all of this trend surfing is that it the announcement of a new trend chums the waters with money making prospects. The magazines and manufacturer's beat the proverbial dead horse to make that dollar. For the duration of this frenzy, a major demographic of scrappers is being left behind and/or disregarded. The people who don't worship the magazines or self-proclaimed scrap celebrities are stuck on the sidelines looking at product that they don't really care for. People who do follow the magazines but don't care for the trend are forced to wade through row after row of trend specific merchandise (and magazine pages) in search of anything that will support their non-trend way of scrapbooking. The work of these scrappers is mostly disregarded by magazines/manufacturers and are crudely labeled 'outdated' by those who are nose deep in the trends. The trend is not allowed to die, not until something else comes along that the magazines deem to be worthy.

What will it take for the magazines to take a good hard look at the way the public is reacting to the trends? Do they even consider the views of those who don't follow the trends to be valid? If the majority of scrapbookers scrap their own way, then why is it so necessary to declare a 'hip' way of doing things? How signature is a style if it's going to be pimped to the general public to an extent that facilitates it being non-signature? How would you like to see the magazines restructure their offerings?

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Pea Validations...Do YOU Pea?

I was led to this post on 2peas from a poster on Scrap Smack and I must say that if the responses in that thread are any indication of why there is a growing 'us against them' rift in the scrapbooking metropolis, then I don't know how much more proof a person would need. The opening poster posed the question of what the other peas think when they run across a person who is oblivious to the existence of 2 Peas in a Bucket.

Check it out: http://twopeasinabucket.kaboose.com/mb.asp?cmd=display&thread_id=2203073

As the poster on Scrap Smack stated, the inference is that you aren't 'in the know' or a REAL scrapbooker if you aren't a member of the 2Peas family.

*Personal preference? Phooey! Anyone who wants to get anywhere with their craft will Pea.
*Lack of access to the .net? Not an excuse! You can get your does of veggies from the library!
*Don't like the 'environment' there? Puleeeze! If you're a real scrapper, you'll feel at home!

I don't usually throw the 'p' word around, but today is the day! Pretentious! There! I said it.
I would like to know, exactly what vein of superiority people are drinking from that allows them to easily discount the validity of another scrapbooker simply because they don't choose to join a site. I don't care how popular the site is, as American Idol has shown us, the quality of your offerings don't matter much when you are buffered by drama fiends. That thread is one of the main reasons why I don't frequent 2peas outside of the occasional like track.

This isn't about 2peas. It's about the attitude of superiority. It's about the underlying tone of nonacceptance. It's about the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) ostracizing of people who have the audacity to share your hobby but not your tastes. If I were a person new to the online scrapbooking world, that post would definitely NOT have propelled me into membership. Right from the word go I would've felt the pressure to assimilate or die trying. That post, however 'well intentioned' only served to highlight some of the reasons that people CHOOSE not to frequent the site. The way that people answered the question and justified their snobbery was downright embarrassing! There are hundreds of thousands of people who engage in the hobby, to devalue their work because they don't align their interests with what you deem to be important is just plain idiotic. That is not my idea of community.

Community is a group of beings sharing a like interest. It's not a group of beings sharing 1 collective braincell. Community doesn't hold validation hostage.

Honestly, if I were the owner of that site, I'd be cringing right now. That's assuming that they don't also hold dearly to the same non-truth. Think about it. How many lurkers are reading that elitist post and seeing that negative connotation between the lines of loving pea loyalty? One poster went so far as to say that not knowing about 2peas was akin to not being serious about scrapbooking. If I were the OP, I would be checking myself in at the nearest clinic to get my head out of my...ahem... you know where I was going with that.

Scrapbooking was in existence long before computers and the world wide web sprouted up. The hobby of scrapbooking is significantly older than the owners of the 2peas site. There are lots of scrapbookers who have realized their goals of publishing and Design Team employment without the help of an affiliation with vegetables. Many of them would blow the GG offerings off the map! It's pretty obvious that those devout members of the pea-nut gallery are oblivious to the stigma of negativity and cliquish behavior that the #1 site carries, so much so that it's unfathomable that anyone would achieve any success or knowledge in the scrapbooking arena without being affiliated. Perhaps they should read that thread to gain some insight as to how anyone could possibly not want to Pea.

So at what point did the priviledge of being considered a "real" scrapbooker fall on any one online site? When did it fall on anyone other than the person who is doing the scrapbooking?

What I got from that post is that it's okay to get your start elsewhere, even if it's not from an Internet or media linked source, BUT if you don't find your way to pea-dom, then you're just playin' with your mama's make-up. I'm almost perturbed enough to use the 'A' word! Not THAT one!...the OTHER 'A' word...arrogant). I joined the site 3 years ago and it only took a couple of days to decide that it wasn't for me. I came back 2 years later, and it's still not the place for me.
I honed my skills in nurturing evironments of acceptance and none of them were named after vegitables.

I have been in an LSS and overheard Peas ask other women if they "Pea" and I've seen the looks ranging from pity to incredulity and even disgust when the answer they get is 'no' or if the person that they ask has no clue why they are being asked about their elimination practices.

It's a sad, sad world indeed when we start grasping at green straws in our attempts to somehow elevate ourselves. The next time someone that I perceived to be a pretentious prat asks me if I "pea" will no doubt here me say, "Only when I can't find someone else to kick me in the teeth".

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Integrity in the Scrapbooking Industry... or is it all 'just business'?

Someone brought up something in yesterday's comment section that I think really warrants further thought if not discussion. What I got from the comments (and it wouldn't be the first time that I've been a little off in my assessments) is that the importance of integrity within the ranks of the scrapbooking 'powers-that-be' appears to be an after thought rather than a founding business principal. There are companies, stores, and possibly magazine editors who do believe in giving everyone a fair shake, but on the otherside of the fence are just as many that are more focused on the money side of the industry and only address integrity when it is called into question.

***********************************************************************
Prima Marketing:
I mentioned the Prima Marketing impropriety scandal in the last entry. In a nutshell, Prima contracted with a store to sell necessary items for a big contest and not only allowed the owner to enter, but granted her the 1st place prize. Prima's fix to the uproar was to 1) deny any intentional impropriety, and 2) insure that for the next contest, the entry requirements and restrictions would be much more clear. Is this a case of a lessened priority being put on integrity (on the parts of both the store owner and Prima)? I suppose that Prima assumed that their popularity and foothold in the industry would be sufficient enough to ride any wave of controversy and still walk away smelling like a rose.

***********************************************************************
Bug Buzz:
The Cricut/Provocraft fiasco of 2006 was another example of questionable integrity if you ask some of the LSS owners. Some retailers allege they were told that the machine would only be shipped to them, while others allege they were promised to get their machines ahead of any big box manufacturer. What happened was what usually happens in business, the company with the most money to spend (i.e., 2000 machines versus 6 machines) reserves the power to dictate the instore date from the supplier. Delivery logistics was just the springboard for all of the other problems that errupted when Provocraft released that portable electronic die cutter, so I can't bring myself to say that flawed integrity was a primary player here. If anything, the whole situation was borne of a combination of unrealistic retailer expectations, overzealous sales/marketing representatives and a profit-seeking interests on the part of all involved parties. The Cricut fiasco was, in another nutshell, the resultant sum of all of it's parts.

***********************************************************************
Making Memories Idol:
Most recently, the integrity issue has been brought to the surface in the Making Memories Idol contest that is currently running. There has been much speculation as to the fairness of the voting, particularly when the contestants who are well known scrappers are allowed to enter. The main point of contention seems to be that even witholding the names of the contestants isn't enough when you're dealing with an individual who is so prevalent in the industry that pictures of their friends and family, when coupled with their individual style, can be used to easily identify the scrapbooker. Suddenly, in the middle of the contest, it is decided that the next rounds offerings will be nameless AND utilizing stock photos in an attempt to level the voting field. This obvious attempt to interject some form of integrity standards into the contest was welcomed, albeit a little too late in the game to make a real difference. If this tactic had've been employed from the start, perhaps it would have slightly better than a snowball's chance in hell at succeeding, once the contestants are narrowed down, it's pretty easy to discern the work of at least one of the contestants, particularly if his/her style was signature.

Alas, even this noble attempt to make things right has been thwarted because the word is out that one of the contestants has taken it upon herself to mass email people to offer hints as to which of the layouts belongs to her! THAT is another blog entry in and of itself!

***********************************************************************
HOF/ MASTERS:
How many times have we heard about people being 'personally' invited to drop an entry for HOF or MM Masters? The speculation for this years contest was ear-splitting, and when much of it turned out to carry a degree of truth, the screaming only got louder. I see a severe lack of integrity and a blatant disregard for the public when contests like this preselect winners but have them enter as if they are a regular contestant. What ever happened to excluding contests to friends, family, affiliates and associate? Would it be accepted easier if these companies just handed the shoe-ins their 'crowns' and held the calls for the rest of the 'nobodies'? Do they owe us our unruffled feelings?

***********************************************************************
Publication and Design Team Calls:
Magazines aren't immune to questionable ethics scandals by any means. How is it that with hundreds of layout entries received for every call, the magazines seem to always publish the layouts of some of the same faces, over and over again. And I'm not talking about the inhouse staff either. You will never convince me that those few people are the only talented scrapbookers out there! You won't even convince me that those are the only talented scrapbookers out there who are submitting work! It has been said, time and time again that knowing someone on the inside is key, and I now believe it wholeheartedly. At first glance, it would appear that the magazines are more interested in sticking with their tried and true 'formula for success' than they are in really listening to the primary complaint from it's readers; "New faces, Different Skillsets"! How much better is it to present your mag as a fair and balance representation of the diversity of the scrapbooking arena than to present a magazine that isn't only what the editors consider "HOF worthy"? If the demographic for scrapbookers is so multifaceted and varied, then why is it so distasteful or risky to present a magazine that embraces that? Why are clear and concise prerequisites mentioned in their page calls? How many people would they turn away if they requested layouts that follow their selection criteria or layouts from people with prior publishing experience?

The store Design Team Cal (online)l selection process is an integrity timebomb. Yes, it is initially in the better interest of a store owner to hire talent that can inspire the people who visit his/her site to create, preferable with products purchased from that particular store. But does that necessarily mean that that person has to be a 'known'/well DT-ed scrapper? Particularly one that only popped up for the call and will most likely only commit the bare minimum of effort to the store because of his/her other obligations? If the skill set of scrappers who are members of that store's message board are varied (particularly if it's a new site), then why not present a variance in the skillsets of your Design Team members?
The first site that I became a member of had a very top heavy DT. Their work, was beautiful, it was darned near perfect in execution and brilliantly designed. It was also so intimidating to me as a newby that I ran head-first into a scrapblock that lasted months. Their work that was intimidating, their nonchalant attitude was disconcerting as well. But they were uber published for the most part, so it was all good, right? Wrong! Much of the team had no concern for helping others hone their skill, and they even went so far as to not announce Pub calls and DT calls until they were tooting about winning a spot...that got old fast.
The means by which the new teams are chose is also a big part of the problem. It has become common practice to allow the current DT members to have a hand in the selection process for the new team. Is there any doubt that favortism is always waiting in the eaves? What about the owners who allow themselves to be courted by some of the applicants until it becomes pretty obvious (to everyone else) that they are shoe-ins? Much of the time the judging isn't blind and there have even been instances of voting collusion amongst members to ensure that DT favorites/friends get on the team. Is that 'just business'?

Then there is the Manufacturer Design/Creative Team selection process. It's almost commonplace for the advertisments for these calls to invite scrapbookers of all talent levels to apply. Just as it's almost commoplace for only scrapbookers of a certain accomplishment/skill level to be selected the majority of the time. Is it a lack of integrity that allows the manufacturers withhold the known selection criteria from prospective entrants? Is there really anything wrong with leading scrapbookers into false hope just to increase your sales (after all...it is free will, right?)?
***********************************************************************

I think that integrity does play a very big role in the industry, I've only touched on the topic from the 'toe in the door' stand point. There is still the whole ugly 'how you treat the people you hire' and idea stream manipulation ball of wax that I haven't touched. I don't doubt for a minute that the drive to succeed has allowed many to underestimate the importance of integrity in this industry and the significance of the impact when it falls by the wayside. Many reputations have been tarnished and many more will suffer similar fates until something is done to reiterate the importance. Until all of the scrapbookers form a collective voice that demands ethical business dealings, the problem will continue to fester. 1 person won't matter, 10 people won't matter, heck, 100 people won't matter!

The fact that I stopped subscribing to any scrapbooking magazines (or even buying them) won't do a thing to change the way they select their layouts for publishing.
The fact that I haven't purchased a scrapbook related item in 4 months won't stop the infulx of new product everytime somebody sneezes.


It has to come from the top and trickle down. The industry, as a collective, has to hold themselves to a higher standard and demand the same of anyone that they interact with. It was the industry that turned this craft into a cut throat, by any means necessary melee and the more scrapbookers are exposed to unprinipaled business practices, the more they adopt an acceptance of those behaviours which can only lead to a lot more negativity and questionable behaviour.
We have already gotten to the point where it means more to win a contest than to win a contest on the merits of your talent. It's now more impressive to be able to list 10 or 15 Design Teams on your resume than it is to list 3 or 4 teams that you dedicated yourself to. It's no longer common practice to work your way up because there is a much speculated glass ceiling that only certain people are allowed to breech. How much further are we willing to go?

Monday, April 9, 2007

What exactly is "success" in scrapbooking?

If ever there was a loaded scrapbooking query, this would have to be it.

What determines whether or not a scrapbooker is a 'success'? Is there such a thing as success in scrapbooking? If there is, does that also mean that there is such a thing as failure in scrapbooking? How can a success or failure meter be attached to memory recording?

In my little world, I consider myself to be a failure in the scrapbooking aspect of my life. Not because I lack adequate magazine publications or because I have a Twiggy thin scrap resume. No, I consider myself a failure because I have the attention span of a puppy with 6 tails when it comes to crafting. I bead, I sew, I scrapbook, I draw, I write and I am always looking for new ways to spread my creative spirit thin. My loss in the popularity poll is personal and is not influenced by external opinions. I think that would be the perfect time to add that I am a Gemini and therefore blame my constant need for change on my mother and father's timing.

Outside of my little warped world, that is always talk of so and so being a successful scrapper and so and so predicted to fail in his/her endeavours. Every time I read about the successes and failures in scrapbooking I do a Scooby Doo, complete with cocked head (huh?). We are preserving memories...or at least I thought we were. Some people have taken it a step further to include purposefully attempting to inspire others by their memory preservation skills. Still others have opened different avenues within the memory preservation metropolis for us to explore. Are they successful because they are 'known'? Is it the fact that they have moved their focus outside their personal sphere of existence (sort of)? Is it the fact that they are sought after?

In a perfect world, the success of a scrapbooker (providing such a thing exists) would be gaged not by whether the masses believe that person to be successful, but rather on whether or not that scrapbooker feels that they have attained all that they set out to attain. Once weight is given to the peer opinion, we are met with the dilemma of conflict between the people who feel that we're brilliant and those who think we need to hang out in a little padded room. When the determining factor of success is the number of people (outside of family/friends) who like what we do, I think we set ourselves up to be affected by the opinions of the people who don't like our creations.

What the heck am I talking about? Beats me, I'm just trying to clear out some mental clutter, so bear with me.

I remember in grade school I had this thing about collecting bugs. I was a shy child, so I didn't make friends easily, particularly because friends generally want you to talk to them and I wasn't fond of talking to people. I would spend my recess period behind school buildings collecting bugs and playing with them. Eventually I was joined by another socially reclusive kid, I think his name was Michael, and we would spend countless recesses collecting bugs together. I don't recall speaking more than 10 words to that kid during the school year. One day, a girl named MaryJo discovered what I was doing behind the building and brought her band of guppies along to do it too. I remember feeling popular because I there were a bunch of kids looking for bugs behind buildings with me. I was validated and I didn't have to change a bit! MaryJo and her band were rather talkative so naturally their fascination with me wore off pretty quickly. One Monday afternoon, MJ and the guppies confronted me and told me how stupid I was for collecting pill bugs and proceeded to snatch my little paper box and dump out the contents and stomp on the bugs that I'd put in it. That was the first time that I began to feel bad about doing what I liked to do. I stopped collecting bugs a few days after that and took to sitting on the sidelines on the playground.
The point isn't that I was doing something wrong. It's not even that I being a recluse is a bad thing. The point of my story is that up until the point where I gaged the validity of what I was doing on the opinion of someone else, I was happy doing it. The second that they withheld validation, I felt 'less than'.

I think that a similar phenomena is plaguing the scrapbooking arena. How many times have you read a disclaimer from someone posting in a gallery that states that their work isn't perfect or that a layout isn't their all time favorite? How many times have you heard people say that they aren't good at scrapbooking?

Being good or successful in scrapbooking, to me is a misnomer that does little to embrace the founding intent of scrapbooking. I'd rather that someone base their success (if they must speak in terms of success or failure) on whether they have accomplished what they set out to do with their craft, not on whether or not others feel that they are worthy. I had a publishing goal for a quick minute a while ago. I told myself that I would try to get published. I almost walked away because it wasn't happening for me. I began to compare the work of other published scrappers with mine own and came to the conclusion that I wasn't good enough, trendy enough, or versatile enough. I let others (unknowingly) set my standard for success, and I almost walked away from scrapbooking because I felt like a failure. It wasn't until my husband, in a brief moment of brilliance, explained to me that I was indeed a success because I did try to get published. That pearl of wisdom coupled with the overwhelming acceptance of my work from friends and family brought my way of thinking around full circle. I didn't toss my stash in the fire place. I didn't declare to the world that I'd quit. I didn't give up something that I love doing.
Instead I stepped away from that goal and reprioritized. I don't feel like a failure for not having been published, and after spending a lot of time evaluating what I want to get out of this, I've realized that I don't want to be published. I just want to be appreciated. I got that and I'm happy with it.

Now if I could just get a set of blinders maybe I could get some pages done.

There is nothing wrong with attributing success to the number of publications one has or how sought after a scrapper is, but there are dangers in it. The most significant of the perils resides in the arena of public opinion, and we all know how fickle that lot can be. When external factors weigh in on our success meters we put ourselves at the mercy of others. I personally find more inspiration in the scrapbooker who continues to keep doing what he/she is doing regardless of the level of appreciation/acceptance the masses grants him/her. My selfish perspective has allowed me to avoid the trend traps and the validation wars that are running rampant now.

And I like it that way... I like it a lot.

I am the last person to dictate what a person should or shouldn't do with their craft. We all have to do what is right for us. All I can do is hope that oneday, we will be able to stop grading each other's work because it truly is a gift to be able to see value in our differences.

TFR (thanks for reading)
CS