Cage Fight '09: Wal-mart vs. Amazon

Media Mediation Number 8

It's Black Friday.

For some that means waking up at midnight to go line up outside of stores, preparing to storm the entrance at 5 a.m. when they open to get the newest craze for a few less dollars. To boost the economy, retailers have opened their doors even earlier this year, and set their prices even lower. The retailers appeal to the reptilian brain, with "buy it now or waste your money later" mentality. For Wal-mart and Amazon, Black Friday means competing for the lowest prices around this holiday season.

Wouldn't you rather purchase your gifts online, sitting on your couch? Or from you Blackberry while enjoying a post-Thanksgiving family day, instead of trudging through overcrowded stores and shopping malls?

Of course you would, and retailers Amazon and Wal-mart know this. The two conglomerations are currently pitted against each other in a "price war," fighting to "the death" to grab customers during a recession filled holiday season.

The whole thing started when Wal-mart discounted ten of their best selling novels to a mere $10.00, and Amazon (who services their clients online, versus Wal-mart mostly in store based sales) matched the sale. When Wal-marts prices sank to 8.99, Amazon surrendered. The two retailers then extended the battle to other areas of the market, lowering prices on DVD's, and the popular Christmas gift, Easy Bake Oven. Wal-mart and Amazon also used bribery to lure in consumers, offering free gift cards with specific purchases. The very existence of these retail behemoths and their ability to sell goods far below the value is an example of the economic shift that is present in our culture.

Is this really about offering the lowest prices, or getting the most customers?

No. In fact, "Since wholesale book prices are traditionally around fifty per cent off the cover price, and these books are now marked down sixty per cent or more, Amazon and Wal-Mart are surely losing money every time they sell one of the discounted titles. The more they sell, the less they make. That doesn’t sound like good business." No, that doesn't sound like good business, it almost sounds like a PR move to advertise Wal-marts ability to compete in the digital marketplace, a skill which is shaping up to be a neccessity for successful retailers.

The New York Times astutely pointed out "Though online shopping accounts for only around 4 percent of retail sales, that percentage is growing quickly. E-commerce did not suffer as deeply as regular retailing during the economic malaise, and it is recovering faster than in-store shopping. People are also shopping on smart phones and from their HDTVs." In regards to the book market, "By 2008, online booksellers controlled between 21 and 30 percent of consumer book sales" (336). In this age of convergence, shopping online is more convenient than offline, and when buying from online retailers such as Amazon, you don't have to pay sales tax.

But Wal-Mart and Amazon's sales are not the most important part of the story here. The media is advertising this "price war" as a benefit to consumers, but if they are consumers that support small business, I don't see how that's possible. "From a game-theory perspective, price wars are usually negative-sum games: everyone loses. A recent study found that, if competitors do match price cuts, industry profits could get cut almost in half."

And what does cutting industry profits in half do to small business owners, who are already struggling to compete with big box stores like Wal-mart? "About 19,000 outlets sell books in the United States," what will happen to those that cannot afford to sell the books at below their value, like Amazon and Wal-mart (334)? According to the Wall Street Journal, "Diana Abbott, manager of the Bookworm, an independent bookstore in Omaha, Neb., said that some independents will likely lose some business on the titles involved. "We've been fighting deep discounting for a long time, although $10 is obviously an extreme," said Ms. Abbott. "But there is a strong element of loyalty to independents.... We’ll survive this.""

But what about the publishing industry, will it survive? With so many conglomerations offering the same ridiculous deals on top-selling books (Sears and Target have joined in the "price war" as well), will consumers come to expect books to cost less? The fact that large retailers like Wal-mart and Amazon can do this seems like an extreme example of a Political shift. Time states, "The industry is so concerned about the battle that the American Booksellers Association has asked the Department of Justice's antitrust division to investigate the retailers' pricing practices. "Amazon.com, Wal-Mart and Target are devaluing the very concept of a book,""

How did this story suddenly make it onto the pages of Time, The Wall Street Journal, NY Times, and other sources seemingly instantaneously? There are price wars going on all the time, especially between online and in store retailers. The whole advantage of shopping online is that there are usually cheaper prices than in the store. In my opinion, this is an obvious case of Wal-mart's PR team pushing a story on the American public, and capitalizing on timing of the consumerism of the holiday season.

McDonalds Ethnic Advertising: Effective or Offensive?

Media Meditation Number 7

McDonalds is one of the largest companies in the world, and they spend the advertising bucks to prove it. In 2009,“McDonald's spent $814 million" in multi-media advertising. It has gone through a million different makeovers, changing advertising methods and catch phrases frequently. Recently, the company settled on the “I’m Lovin’ It” campaign (Talk about about repetition, I feel like a hear this all day every day). The campaign’s success is in part to the advertising geniuses behind it, DDB (and their international counter parts, Tribal DDB), and also to Mary Dillon, global chief marketing officer for McDonalds. So far, Ms. Dillon has made "I'm Lovin' It" her mission, rolling the campaign out to 118 countries, and working hard to make it relevant everywhere.”

This is a McDonalds commercial that aired in Hong Kong in 2003.

So how do they make this simple, universal slogan, something that people from everyone of the 118 countries it services invest something in it? The answer: ethnic advertising. Using a simply phrased, relatively low impact slogan allows the creative minds behind international and domestic McDonalds advertising to infuse ads with more ethnic “ties.”

An interesting article on Advertising Age said “The marketing at McDonalds is informed first and foremost by ethnic insights that shape the chain's marketing to African Americans, Asians and Hispanics.” And when you look at some of the statistics laid down by Neil Golden, chief marketer of McDonald’s USA, you can see why they choose to take this particular approach. “40% of McDonald's current U.S. business comes from the Hispanic, Asian and African-American markets, and 50% of consumers under the age of 13 are from those segments. "And they're among our most loyal users,"”

Finical results prove that this type of advertising is working. “Since 2002, he (Golden) said the U.S. business alone has grown by $10 billion, or $750,000 per restaurant. That translates into an additional 1.8 billion customer visits each year, or about 75,000 visits per restaurant. Restaurant cash flow has grown 50% over the same period.”

But has McDonalds taken this targeted advertising too far? See 365black.com, a user oriented website for McDonalds which “celebrates” African American culture 365 days a year.

Or how about Myinspirasian.com, a site that is meant to appeal to McDonalds Asian customers.

“The reality is that ethnic marketing is commonplace.” There’s no doubt that producers routinely use race or ethnicity to market their products. The race card is a very effective persuasive technique. This is a great example of the discursive shift that is going on in our media systems. While the people who concocted this site obviously think it is a good idea, there is a lot of outrage in the online community. There is even an online petition to boycott both McDonalds and 365black.com

But is this too much? Are ethnic advertising techniques effective beyond just recruiting customers, are they also increasing the racial divide? What is the value message that McDonalds is sending to it's huge customer base?

And is it fair for McDonald’s to say that their minority customers are the “most loyal” when in reality, it is the fact that a un-proportionate amount of minorities in the U.S. also live on or below the poverty line, limiting the options they have for feeding themselves or their children? When you only have a few dollars to feed a whole family, of course McDonald’s will be a place you’ll go again and again. I think that is pretty obvious example of reality construction.

This could become a frightening example of the hypodermic-needle model of media effects, when "the media shoot their potent effects directly into unsuspecting victims" (475). No one is thinking, I'm going to watch this racily targeted McDonald's ad and feel more alienated from other races, but with the saturation of McDonald's advertising, and there obvious attempt to target children as early as possible, it's not an unbelievable reality. This embodies the cultivation effect of media, that prompts "individuals to perceive the world in ways that are consistent with television portrayals" (481).

Or, is McDonalds just ahead of the curve, preparing for a United States that is does not have a white majority? Immigration has been slowly leveling out the white population. The 2020 census is predicted to show whites “at 79 percent,” which is still the majority, but those projections include those who consider themselves “Hispanic Whites.” Without the Hispanic White contribution, “the Bureau estimates that in the next fifteen years whites will fall to just sixty-four of every hundred Americans.”

So is McDonalds fueling the race fire, or just preparing for the future? My opinion is that yes, ethnic advertising may be effective, but advertisers should also be considering the effect on the community their ads have. Having separate websites for Blacks, Whites, and Asians is like digital segregation. No doubt the minds behind McDonalds ethnic advertising are brilliant, but their genius could be more aptly applied than being used to enhance racial boundaries. In a future where there is no racial majority, and Hispanics and Whites are of equal population, won’t ethnic advertising limit the market, ignoring a comparable demographic?

Cougars and Culture

Media Meditation Number 6

I'm sure you've heard of ABC's new prime-time series "Cougar Town" starring ex-Friend, Courtney Cox. The sitcom follows the life of Jules Cobb, a 40-something divorcee living in a small town in Florida employed as a real estate agent, who "wants to relive her 20's by dating younger men." The show plays heavily on the reptilian brain, with a large portion of the plot being Cox's character trying to have sex. The limbic brain is also used, but in my opinion, the only emotions I experience when I saw this series is sadness that even in a series about older women, the basis of their value is placed on their physical beauty.

This television show exemplifies the gender double standard that we have in this country. At first glance, some may say that this series is a step forward for feminism. Women are "socially allowed" to be sexual beyond their twenties, and dating younger men is deemed acceptable. If there was a television show about a man "renewing his sexuality" after a divorce, how many episodes would run before it would be pulled for propitiating pedophilia, or statutory rape? Consider a line from the preview of the show " Go do disgusting things to that boy..." What if that said "Go do disgusting things to that little girl"? The FCC would be all over that.

The timing of this show is pretty convenient. Cougar fascination is off the charts. There are now dating sites, such as DateaCougar.com, Cougared.com and Urbancougar.com. This is not the first television series to attempt to cover the topic, TV Land premiered The Cougar a reality dating show, recently. CBS's jumped on the bandwagon and rolled out their own cougar show, Cougar Town.

Let's take a deeper look at this sitcom, starting with the title. An interesting blog I stumbled upon, Adventures of a Young Feminist, brought up a great point regarding the etymology of the word used to define these women who date younger men: cougars. Men who date younger women are referred to as bachelor's or playboys, both words with positive connotations. Cougar, on the other hand, implies "...that women are preying on and attacking young men where as men are congratulated for dating younger women." Just within the shows title, there is already evidence of the gender double standard. The LA Times had an interesting comment on the title as well, "the term (Cougar) is, at its root, a sexual pejorative; cougars may be sexy, but they carry with them a predatory air and the distinct whiff of desperation. Previous incarnations involved blowzy peignoirs and a bottle of gin -- in "Cougar Town," this has been updated to cocktails and implants."

And lets look at the cast as well. Courtney Cox at 45 years old does not look like your average mother of a teenager, "Cox is way too attractive to be quite believable as the character she plays." The beautiful people persuasive technique is definitely in play here. In a brief flashback to five years ago, we remember Cox as a 20-something member of the cast of "Friends." So she goes from 20 to 40 in just a few years? The reality construction of this show is a little off target. If the producers of this show are trying to pretend all divorced women looking for a renewed love life look like Cox, they are definitely peddling the big lie technique.

And if this is a release in the sexual limitations put on women, then what is up with the constant dissection of looks by the main character? The show establishes that it is in sync with the rest of the media world when "From the first scene of the series, where we find Jules pinching the loose skin on her elbow disapprovingly, all Jules can talk about is how hard it is not to look disgusting at her age." The show continues stereotypes that women are most concerned with their looks, and that it is important for them to keep up on these looks. The character Cox plays is in her 40's, defiantly old enough to realize that her looks are not going to be great forever, yet she consistently clings to her physical beauty as one of her only endearing qualities.

Look at the relationship between the mom (Cox) and her son, who is only seventeen, when she decides that she is going to date younger men. During a "successful sexual encounter for her in the pilot episode is undercut by humor as she's interrupted by her son..." Her son walks in on his mother having sex, and with a considerably younger men. What does this do to their mother son relationship? And how do cougars in general effect the sexual landscape that young men are dealing with? In the preview for the series, Cox's character asks her son to stay in with her and watch a movie, to which he responds "Are you hitting on me?" Even thinking that about your mother is a little strange if you ask me. What are the value messages we are sending to young viewers that might be watching this series? What are the value messages we are sending in general, by capitalizing on "the Cougar movement?"

The American Culture offered an interesting prospective on Cougar Town, and how it reflects the "sexual revolution" that is going on today. Cox's character "wants to do right while still having irresponsible fun, which is certainly a common contemporary point of view." Kind of a conundrum isn't it? Do right while having irresponsible fun-- is there such a thing? Doesn't being irresponsible (especially in sexual situations) usually lead to serious consequences? The series is "giving lip service to morality and reality while ultimately conveying a fantasy of sexual freedom without any seriously bad consequences."

While this show may attempt to play heavily on older women's nostalgia for the single, care-free days of their youth, I think it misses the point by creating an un-believable character. The writers are diverting attention from the truth of the situation of a divorcee in her 40's, whom the majority of don't look, or act, like Cox's character. I think the only humor in this series is the fact that Cox, a forty something in real life, hasn't said anything about the ridiculous actions of her character. Maybe the writers of this show should ask themselves some questions: Do I know anyone who really acts like this? Will women who are actually in this situation connect with these characters?

Television is "the most influential media innovation since the printing press" (146). There are serious repercussions in both society and culture based on what we put on television. If television is a "prevailing cultural center", what are series like Cougar Town saying about our culture (178)?

Adam Lambert: American Idol?

Media Meditation Number 5

Adam Lambert. American Idol finalist. American Music Awards 2009 performer.

Incendiary for social change?

He thinks so.

ABC's Good Morning America thinks otherwise.

Lambert's performance on the American Music Awards on Sunday night was no doubt entertaining. During the choreographed final performance of Lambert's song "For Your Entertainment", a dancer in Lamberts crew shoved their head into Lambert's crotch, simulating oral sex. Later on in the performance, Labmert kissed another (male) member of the performance group. In the age the technological shift, the video of Lambert's performance has been played thousands of times since the awards show.

Unexpected? No. The dancer "...putting her face to Lambert's crotch was included in a rehearsal, according to an Associated Press reporter who attended the rehearsal," (the male on male kiss was a surprise). Sex sells, and millions of advertisements use flagrant sexuality to market people, products, and events every day.

Shocking? Not really. Flashback to the 2003 MTV

movies awards where Madonna kissed not only Brittany Spears, but also Christina Aguliera, in a performance of Madonna's "Like a Virgin."

So what was the big deal for ABC, who cancelled on Lambert when he was scheduled to preform on Good Morning America Wednesday morning? ABC said "we were concerned about airing a similar concert so early in the morning." Which, in my opinion in a big cop-out to avoid sparking a dialogue about homosexuality in Disney's (owner of ABC) media repertoire. They were clearly just trying to divert attention from the fact that it was the homosexual element of Lambert's performance that bothered them. "ABC News representatives spoke to members of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination about the decision to cancel Lambert and assured the group that Lambert's sexual orientation had nothing to do with it, said Richard Ferraro, a GLAAD spokesman. Ferraro said GLAAD was also told that ABC's "Good Morning America" will work with Lambert and other gay and lesbian performers in the future." Why would ABC feel the need to speak to GLADD, if his sexual orientation had nothing to do with the cancellation? I think ABC is pulling the "sexual orientation" card.

The footage of the AMA's was edited for it's West Coast broadcast, cutting the (rehearsed) part of the dance when oral sex is alluded to.

Hello, that's called censorship ABC!

Adam had some words of wisdom to impart on the less than pleased viewers (ABC received 1500 negative responses to the performance).

"There's a big double standard, female pop artists have been doing things provocative like that for years, and the fact that I'm a male, and I'll be edited and discriminated against could be a problem. People are scared and it's really sad, I just wish people could open their minds up and enjoy things, it's all for a laugh, it's really not that big of a deal."

And what a double standard it is. For years, women in the entertainment industry have been using overtly sexual dance moves, clothing styles, lyrics and other things to gain popularity.

For example; Miley Cryus. At the Teen choice awards, --TEEN meaning 13-19--Disney endorsed actress/singer Miley Cyrus preformed her new single, "Party In The USA" punctuated with some not-your-grandmothers-dance-moves. The 17 year old, who is the main character on the hit Disney television show "Hannah Montana," walked on stage in booty shorts and cowboy boots, and then continued to preform sexual dance moves, culminating with a stroll across stage hugging a stripper poll. Talk about inappropriate for children... Miley's performance was at a kid orientated awards show, and her main audience are "tweens," humans that are in between children and teenagers. Where's the outrage about this? How come Miley isn't being rejected from shows and pulled from her Disney prime-time spot?

Lambert's performance was the closing of the AMA's, meaning it wasn't aired until around 11 p.m., far past what is considered prime time. The majority of the complaints I read were citing that children were viewing the awards show as the reason for viewers disgust with the performance. What were your children doing up at 11 pm? Are children really going to change what they consider as right and wrong after watching one awards show performance? "Since rock and roll's inception, one of the uphill battles it faced was the perception that it was a cause of juvenile delinquency" (87). There has always been a stigma that rock and roll will corrupt children, but it this really true, or just an opportunity for parents to blame their shortcomings on the media? This is also a case of individual meaning. Some people may look at the Lambert performance as a blatant sexual exploitation with no agenda other than shock value. Others may see it as an attempt to bring to light the difference between men and women performers and what's accepted by one and not the other.

And, if there had been children watching the rest of the awards show, they were already exposed to the sexual gratuity Janet Jackson brought to the stage, when she grabbed the crotch of a dancer in her "choreography." Or how about Lady Gaga, whose dance moves may not have been out there, but if I am not mistaken, was wearing a flesh colored body suit, as were the rest of her dancers, to simulate being nude? Or Eminem, who "boasted of 17 rapes," in his live performance.

Or what about Brittany Spear's music video from the single "If You Seek Amy"? When the lyrics are sang they sound like "f-u-c-k me." The opening scene of the video is a group of people who are half clothed and have obviously just participated in an orgy, with both male and female members. The song itself, if you look at the actual written words, not the subliminal sexual message, is about a homosexual encounter between Brittany and Amy. This video didn't get banned or censored, even though there are both homosexual references (albeit female, which in the male dominated media world is considered "sexy"), and raunchy dance moves and lyrics.

So what is really the issue here? Is it the blatant sexuality? Is it blatant sexuality coming from a man? Or is it blatant sexuality coming from a gay man?

One commenter on Gawker hit the nail on the head, "He's right. Total double standard. I covered my kids' eyes during his antics, but I distinctly remember the 1980 AMAs when my father yelled, "Get in here, boy! Lionel Richie's face-fucking Donna Summers!"

Media Obsessions That Fuel Domestic Violence: Twilight

Media Mediation Number 4

Everywhere I turn, there it is:

Twilight. Turn on the T.V. and there are interviews with the unusually attractive male lead, Edward or his female counterpart, Bella. Talk to any female of novel reading age, and Twilight seems to be the only subject their mind can ponder. What is up with this sudden and complete obsession? What is the attraction to the already-told eternal love/vampire story? And, is this novel and film being social responsible in the gender rolls and relationship standards that it has applied to its characters, which have now become roll models for millions of young girls?

Let’s first get a little synopsis on the novels, and a breakdown of the main characters. The female lead, Bella, is played by the young actress Kristen Stewart. Bella moves to Forks Washington, where at her new school she meets Edward Cullen, played by Robert Pattison. Edward ends up saving Bella’s life, and then endangering it, by involving her in a vampire power-scandal, where Edward and his family are fighting another vampire clan. In the end, the two fall in love, and Bella decides she wants to become a vampire as well. Of course, she Edward doesn’t want her to do that, and because of their differences they cannot be together. The movie and book series plays heavily on the reptilian brain, with a very large portion of the plot revolving around sexual relationships, and of course, vampires. For the teens watching/reading this love story, its a total attack on the limbic brain, playing heavily on their emotional centers.

So what’s so special about this story? To me it sounds like a recycling of Romeo and Juliet (or any other forbidden love story) with sexy vampires inserted in to catch the eye of the younger generation. And it has done just that. There are millions of young girls obsessed with this love story, idolizing the female lead and fantasizing about being with the male lead.

What’s the big deal? Little girls always choose role models to aim to be like. As a young girl I wanted to be just like Gwen Stefani (when she had sick blue hair and wasn’t a total sell-out) and dreamed of having a romantic relationship with Leonardo DiCaprio (come on, who didn’t?). But Bella and Edward are not characters I would be letting my children look up to. Beyond their obviously unrealistic physical appearance, their relationship also gives young readers a model on how to have a completely dysfunctional romance.

Media and Culture makes great point, saying "movies tell communal stories that evoke and symbolize our most enduring values and our secret desires" (213). So what does Twilight say about our "values and desires?

Bella and Edwards romance is based almost completely on fear. Edward could, and it is suggested would, kill Bella is they ever took their relationship to the next step--the most avoided topic in the saga: sex. Uconn professor, Gina Barreca, said "The big thing that really makes 'Twilight' a really bad book is that fear should never be an aphrodisiac. The idea that you fear your lover should not make him sexier and that is a big part of these books. ... It distresses me to see that in any form, whether or not it's supernatural,” in the Hartford Currant article on the pitfalls of Twilight, and the other books/movies in the series. What are the value messages that are infused in this series? What are we really telling the young, impressionable Twilight readership?

Beyond the fact that fear fuels their relationship, Bella also seems to be completely void of meaning when she is not with her vampire lover, Edward. In the novel, when Edward leaves her, her emptiness is conveyed by blank pages with chapter titles of months having gone by. This is suggesting that Bella has nothing else on her mind, and her life and value, is completely determined by her relationship with Edward.

Bella even gives up going to Dartmouth to stay with Edward, even though their relationship is obviously more trouble then it’s worth. What message is this sending to young girls? Romantic relationships, even dysfunctional ones, are more rewarding than furthering your education?

And the fans that obsess over the series are just eating this relationship up. "Girls say they're turning away from Harry Potter to Edward Cullen because they think it's a more 'realistic' relationship – and he's a vampire! It's baffling." Are relationships that involve stalking, power struggles, and capitalizing on fear more real than those that involve equal power between both male and female (Harry and Hermoine), and encourage teamwork and problem solving? Oh, I wasn’t aware.

Maybe the girls think that the relationship is more realistic because the two actors involved in it, have forged a "real life" relationship, which is all over the tabloids. A wonderful example the heavy hand PR has in constructing reality.

Bella and Edward are not the only dysfunctional couple in the series. There is a werewolf, Sam, who attacks and mauls his love interest in a fit of rage. Later on, the girl forgives him, and the couple gets back together. “Mitru Ciarlante, the youth initiative director for the National Center for Victims of Crimes in Washington, D.C.” had this to say, "This pattern of 'the werewolf' losing control sounds like a dynamic we've heard in abusive relationships,"… Stalking is also "very much an element in teen relationship abuse and a pre-cursor to sexual violence.""

The most scary thing for me is that it’s not only the teen girls—very impressionable teen girls—that are powering this media conglomeration known as the Twilight series. There is a huge older following, mostly women, who are encouraging their young daughters, sisters, friends, nieces ect. to read the series, and bond over them. Of course it is a matter of individual meaning when it comes to these older women endorsing the novel. Many think that the books and movies have harmless messages about young love, and romantic relationships. These women are nostalgic for their younger days, when they felt "romance" like Edward and Bella.

The adult Twi-obsessesors, also known as Twi-mom’s, should be more aware of the flagrant misrepresentation of romance in the novels, but it seems that they choose to ignore it. “...as an adult who has faced reality, it's escapism of a different kind, remembering those first twitches of falling in love and reliving it through Bella." And what an unhealthy escapism it is. The relationship standards the novel endorses, even if we remove all the weird aspects like stalking, power struggles, ect. are so unrealistic. Edward is completely devoted to Bella, as well as sickeningly romantic. "The adults compare him to their own partners, who obviously can't match up." We wonder why there is such as high divorce rate, when women are comparing their average-Joe husbands to the likes of super-sexual (and sexy) teenage vampires. Their interpretation of the Edward/Bella relationship makes the series use the persuasion technique big lie. These women believe that this is the perfect union between two people, but it is in fact quite a dysfunctional one.

USA Today's article had a great explanation of connection between fantasy and expectations. “Relationship expert Valerie Gibson, who hosts a call-in TV show in Ontario, says multi-generational mania for Twilight may be a testament to the emptiness of contemporary relationships. ‘There’s a loss of romance, of mystery, of the holding back of desire and cherishing of a woman,’ she says. ‘Young girls can't find swains who will adore them and worship them. It only happens in books. They long to live in an erotically charged fantasy. Older women know it doesn't happen.’ But they sure like to read about it.” The emotional transfer that happens within these novels and movies is an unrealistic one. Women, and young girls, believe that they can achieve this fantasized relationship, when in reality it may be only one in a million couples that experience a fairytale relationship.

The amount of adult followers for this novel and movie simply astound me. There are so many fan sites devoted only to fans older than teenage years, such as Twilightmoms.com, Twitarded (offensive much?) and Twilight Anonymous, which features a write up on a seventy year old fan.

Will this media saga have an impact on the future of the relationship? I guess we'll have to wait and see. Maybe, hopefully, the follow up books in the series will take a more socially responsible roll in representing relationships now that it is known how explosive the series is. Personally, I see Twilight as a future case study in Media Effects Research, (which "attempts to understand, explain and predict the efects of mass media on individuals in society" (469)) on domestic violence.