Once upon a time, I learned something about target audiences

Years ago, when Denmark went on preparing for the EXPO 2010 exhibition to take place in Shanghai, the architects of the company BIG had the idea that the original statue of the Little Mermaid should be a key element in BIG's winning project for Denmark's pavilion at the EXPO 2010 World Exhibition in Shanghai.

Image courtesy of Pixabay / hbieser

This called for a lot of discussion. The sculptor's heirs were displeased, and many people meant that the creative class had gone too far when a national heritage and tourist magnet like the Little Mermaid were going to Shanghai.
Even I had to put down the coffee cup when I heard a newsflash in national radio, in which architect Bjarke Ingels from BIG told that

... one of our first visions was clearly that she should sit as a figurehead on the container carrier Emma Maersk as she sails into Shanghai ...

My first thought was: When this idea were not made reality (BIG won the project, but The Little Mermaid went to Shanghai in a less spectacular way), why not consider what such a Utopian idea makes "ordinary sane people" think about "the creative class"? A little self-censorship might be in place to avoid this? There was already so much debate going on about the so-called creative class as many found that some people from time to time have difficulties to harness their creativity, thereby in their enthusiasm letting some ideas loose even though they should never have left Brainstorm Island. If for no other reason, then he should know that it will only contribute to the adversity towards the aforementioned creative class.
You can come up with all sorts of creative methods and ideas, but if you do not carefully choose to bring to an environment open to the ideas you bring, it makes only little sense. The point of all inspiration is to bring it to places that are open for inspiration. That's why I thought it was a bad idea to bring to the population hardly capable of imagining the little mermaid away from Langelinie, the concept of the statue sitting as a figurehead on a container carrier sailing into Shanghai Harbour. It's like any other case of seduction - it must move a little step at a time. You can unfold it where the mind is open, and then wait nicely for the adverse sides of the mind to let it in. If you just fast forward with everything you've got, you risk the opposite: everything that has been open towards you will be shut. And then you've broken more than you've achieved.
But then it struck me: despite the fact that the message was delivered in a national radio newsflash, the target audience for the message was not John and Jane Doe, choking on their morning coffee - for Bjarke Ingels is not interested in them approaching him to have blueprints made for their new garden shed. He needs people who like big visions and who are interested in erecting monumental architecture - the kind of people who acknowledges the vision of a well-known sculpture as the figurehead of the world's largest container ship, and therefore he's busy keeping each and every such mind open. That way, it can cost the support of all common people - because they are not part of the target audience...
(Translated from Engang lærte jeg noget om målgrupper)

Not enough to make a difference

Recently, I came across a blog post, in which law student Silvana Mouazan talks about how since she started blogging she has been greeted with a question about whether she was Muslim or not.
People who ask such questions may well do so because they are unsure. And if this uncertainty is based on Mouazan's writings, I guess it should be appropriate to conclude that she is probably not so much of a Muslim that anyone should consider it dangerous?
Or to generalize - for it is not only about Muslims and non-Muslims: if one finds it reasonable to divide the world into two groups; we can aptly call the two groups "them" and "us" - and is compelled to ask the question: "are you one of them?" - then even before asking, the conclusion should probably have been that the other party is probably not so much "one of them" that it makes any difference. And then, why ask the question at all?
Or to see it from a completely different angle: at one time it was so popular to say that "if you're not with us, you are against us". Why not turn it over and say, "if you're not against us, you are with us." Maybe even enhance it with a "welcome"?
(Translated from Ikke så meget, at det gør noget, originally published May 16, 2016)