Rivalry

There is no better time for the American consumer to be the American consumer than when there is blood in the water. Even with the Antitrust laws in this country, most companies will do almost anything to keep themselves out of meaningful competition with a formidable adversary, but when that fate cannot be avoided, it is we the customer who win out.

Look at Guitar Hero versus Rock Band. While the latter is, I think, obviously superior, the fact that the two must contend for the same precious market inspires wave after wave of innovation. “Guitar Hero: World Tour” featured a new music creator (a clunky one, but it was there!), as well as improved instrument competitive track list. Clearly this was a franchise fighting for its life, and since “Rock Band 2″ broke little new ground, the moment was seized and “Hero” produced what I think was a better product.

So, “Rock Band” fires back on two fronts: first off, it released “The Beatles: Rock Band,” a veritable haymaker of a return volley. Ouch. Then, they unveiled the “Rock Band Network,” wherein gamers could make “Rock Band” tracks from their own music, upload it, and receive profits from the sale. Double ouch. Now it is “Guitar Hero” who sags behind, hilariously  attempting a retort with “Guitar Hero: Van Halen” (although in fairness, the last edition was “Guitar Hero: Metallica,” and that is pretty close to competitive with the Fab Four). It is precisely this kind of combat, where there are real stakes and the opponents are easily matched, that American businesses will do anything to avoid. They like being where Microsoft was ten years ago: dictating to their customers, putting out garbage because it’s easier, swimming in money.

The point is, these two franchises push each other, violently fighting for territory, and the winner is us. Theoretically, this is what capitalism is always supposed to be like. We saw the same thing with most of the current and next-gen consoles, which is why rumble packs, internet access, and wireless controllers are just expected. Pepsi scared the hell out of Coke in the early 90s, and they’ve never retreated from their “Classic” formula since. The only problem is, sometimes these contests become shams. The companies involved decide actual war is too expensive, so they hire ad agencies to create thought and identity skirmishes. Now the “contest,” if it can be called that, has nothing to do with the product, and everything to do with the image of owning it. They play us for chumps, sicking us on one another while they do whatever the hell they feel like.

Some examples, you ask? Gladly.

1. Apple vs. PC. It used to mean something, and now it’s just a big pile of crap. Apple as a company is becoming so obscenely wealthy off of the iPhone that they can afford to do whatever they want, while the only really strong argument for PC remains the fact that they’re everywhere. Neither of these companies intend to do a damned thing to earn your vote, they’re going to run shop however they feel like and then force you to deal with it, so they’ve pumped millions of dollars into giving America an identity crisis: “I’m a Mac,” “I’m a PC,” etc. Which computer you use is now ideological, and people encamped on either side are beginning to take it…a little too seriously. I know Mac and PC people who seriously cannot switch teams, because they’ve gotten into too many vicious arguments with too many people. It’s now a matter of pride, not product satisfaction, and that is simply bizarre.

2. All Sports Rivalries (Except College Sports). Look, I’m criticizing myself here, okay? Because of where I’m from, I’m relatively certain that the Dallas Cowboys are the sons of the devil. I heard they kill babies in the huddle before a game. Seriously, that is a complete fact.

But there’s something absurd about team loyalty. I’m not saying it should go away, I’m just pointing out a fact. If a team wins, its fans tend to use this to support the blanket assumption that their team is the “best.” If they lose, this fact is somehow not altered, nor will twenty or thirty losses dramatically affect a fan’s position that this team is superior. Abandoning a team that can’t get its act together makes perfect sense to me, but it’s considered traitorous in the world of sports. You’re supposed to stay loyal. But loyal to what? An idea? These teams are not ideologically founded. Certain players? They swap out constantly. A logo? Don’t count on it, somebody’s probably going to sue the owners and make them change it. A location? Franchises move! And even if they didn’t, plenty of non-locals support teams! There is nothing tangible that we’re holding onto here! Nothing except for fond memories and forced habit.

The ugly truth, and I admit to being a part of this, is that we are demonstrating the Stanford Prison Experiment all over again. The number one reason for fan loyalty is human nature: we like to group “us” and “them,” and the former is always better than the latter. And although it’s normally harmless on this side of the Atlantic, the international community has seen horrific violence in the name of these team affiliations. Letting herd mentality get out of hand can have consequences.

Smart fans normally have an excuse that grounds them: a QB who’s been with the team for decades, a good coach, a long-standing franchise, but at the end of the day we all know that there is something mildly arbitrary about it. Like I said: it’s fine, I don’t think we need to change our ways, but let’s all acknowledge that it is funny, and try to keep a leash on it.

3. Republicans versus Democrats. The mother lode. The king of all arbitrary wars. The differences between these two parties are laughably small compared to the factions in many other countries, and yet here we are, blathering like idiots, foaming at the mouth. You will of course observe with any real study that the vast majority of this posturing is manufactured by people who are not politicians: TV personalities, half-baked journalists, rabble-rousing “interest groups,” sleazy attorneys. Then these same people build a fanbase of angry people, by trying to convince all of them that they aren’t mad enough. Moderation is furiously smothered, it can’t be tolerated, bumper stickers demanding that “if you’re not mad, you’re not paying attention” appear everywhere. No matter who is in office, no matter what they’re doing, the news has become entertainment, and entertainment needs drama. It is an absolute circus, human nature at its worst. Both sides are guilty, and I mean guilty. Both sides seem to think the other guy is the one with no scruples…of course.

The most common retort I get to this argument is, more or less, “No, I am nothing like the people in the ____ party. They believe in ____, and I believe in _____. They think it’s okay to _____, and I don’t,” and so on like this, bearing in mind that the things they mention are not trivial. This argument misses the point. I’m not saying American people don’t disagree, nor am I suggesting that these friction points are rare or insignificant, but the oversimplified, super-polarized two party warfare we engage in is ridiculous. There’s a reason George Washington told us not to have such “ying or yang” political ideologies. Not only does this system fail to mediate, it doesn’t really intend to in the first place. This is fighting for fighting’s sake. I fantasize about who would be aligned with whom if these arbitrary restrictions didn’t exist, if they could prioritize the things that matter to them freely. Instead, you must get a label slapped on you like a Star-Bellied Freaking Sneech.

4. Any major studio versus any major studio. No, they don’t all pool their money into the same place, but sometimes it sure as hell feels like they do. And while they are technically “competing” for the biggest box office receipts, it’s more like a really intense game of HORSE than a fight to the death. You have to hand it to them: it takes incredible coordination to march in such rigorous lock-step, to blockade any possibility of things changing. Their conceptual models should be assigned reading in Hell’s business school. Have you ever noticed that few if any of us can tell the difference between, say, a movie made by Paramount or Sony? Some of us might have realized that Lion’s Gate likes horror, or that Warner Bros. loves franchises, but even that is rare. What does it say about a product when it really doesn’t matter who made it?