Stop eating Lady Gaga's Oreos

I don't know if I buy this. The intro Pearl Jam story is only noteworthy because it's unique. Cobain wasn't one of a million examples of counter-culture; we still talk about him today because it was uniquely his brand (to be incredibly famous while seemingly rejecting the fame).

Michael Jackson's hair caught on fire filming a Pepsi commercial in 1984. Bill Cosby famously hawked Jell-O Pudding. Sports stars were on Wheaties. Ronald Regan (the actor!) was a spokesperson for GE.

But that being said, celeb endorsements aside... I do think that the author is right that everything these days "feels fake/contrived" and almost nothing exists without an angle to make money somehow.

Everyone now has the ability to go viral and make it big financially, so it does feel like much of our actions (even if that's not our goal) are shaped that way. A random person may not want to be a rich, famous Instagram influencer... but that doesn't stop them from acting similarly (posting photos for likes).

Humans have always had versions of trying to monetize their lifestyles (tupperware parties?); now we all have the tools to do it at scale.

Definitely a fun read, I almost spit out my coffee after reading about Gen Z thinking nirvana is a clothing brand.

But I don’t follow with the whole premise. The mobility hypothesis is interesting, that people no longer see rich people as something attainable. But becoming famous through influencing or something on that vain. But famous people have been sellouts for far longer than i can remember. Kate bush did some weird promotion for a Dutch theme park called de Efteling and we have been messing with millennials for the past 20 years that nirvana is headlining the biggest Dutch music festival every year. “Ooh yeah i love that song”. And as far as I know Paris Hilton played half of the world into thinking that she was dumb as a rock.

Think that brands have given up on old school advertising. Just god lazy to give people a big bag of money for exposure. For how long will that work until people get bored of that? Yes, a music artist aligning themselves with Pantone as a color once is novel. But how many times does that really stay interesting? Just lazy advertising what only work for a couple of years until the larger crowed stops caring about the next branded Oreo deal.

The author is a superb writer. Actually made me lol:

"I have a problem with artists doing commerce under the guise of art. I listen, I read, and I watch because I want to inhabit, even if just for a moment, the mind of another human. I want to feel what it’s like to be them, and in so doing, I want to better understand what it’s like to be me. But if I journey to the center of someone’s psyche and all I find there is a billboard for Pizza Hut, I’m turning around. If your art is just one node in your business empire, if your albums are merely commercials for your cologne, if you’re trying to turn your first billion into your second billion, you are no longer an artist at all. You are a credit default swap with a discography attached."

Author is way off base. Might as well tell me to stop breathing air, except they stopped selling air 6 years ago and I’ve been gasping ever since.

Chromatica Oreos were absolutely wonderful (as far as mass produced garbage that is unfit for human consumption is concerned) and I miss them dearly. Telling me to stop eating them is like telling me to stop seeing a boyfriend who died tragically years ago.

Worse, it brings up painful memories of when Oreo Coke (actually good, unlike Coke Oreo) came into my life, showed me that true love is possible, then disappeared forever in barely a month. I’m still reeling.

Edit: boo, hiss!

Never heard of Lady Gaga's Oreos until now, don't even care about Lady Gaga, but someone telling me not to eat them is kinda making me want to try.

As for the point of the article, the problem isn't that people are eating the Oreos, it's that Lady Gaga sold out. Doesn't matter how well they sell.

Ten years ago, around the time Instagram started allowing influencers to monetize their posts, I remember thinking that the bar for “selling out” had suddenly been drastically lowered. In the past, companies had to weigh a lot of factors before selling out, usually for millions of dollars. Now, an individual gig worker may, out of economic necessity, have to sell out for $500.

As people become brands—or aspire to become brands—every meaningful aspect of life, from intimate family moments to vacations, is pushed toward commodification and monetization. The craving for fame becomes intertwined with that process, with each reinforcing the other. And when you're a modern equivalent to a hunter and gatherer, there's little time or (incentive) to step back and reflect on the system that led you and your cohort to this bleak place.

I don't care who has their name on the package. I just enjoy the different flavors. The Selena Gomez ones were great. I appreciate the different flavors occasionally, and buy them from time to time if I see them.

I realize most people aren't like me. But that's even more reason to not bother to tell people this. People who like Lady Gaga are going to feel inspired to buy her Oreos, no matter what you say. They know she's already mega-rich, and they are happy to keep giving her money. You aren't going to stop that.

> The only thing that’s unprecedented about these craven cash-ins is how well they seem to be working. Selling out no longer carries a stigma—if anything, fans are excited for tie-ins between their favorite bands and their favorite brands, no matter how shameless.

I feel like this only really makes sense in contrast to specifically the 90s? This wasn't some eternal cultural rule that changed in the 2000s, it's just two pretty recent trends in mainstream culture. You can still find people who are snobby about Drake compared to Kendrick or Taylor Swift compared to Chappelle Roan nowadays anyway. That mindset isn't gone?

>That feeling part of a larger anti-consumerist vibe percolating through culture at the time.

No, now this is not how I remember it at all. It was entirely limited to that era of music. Back then, Michael Jordan got hundreds of millions on just his sneakers. Nobody dared to think he was "selling out". George Foreman grills were hot. Gretzky was into selling you quite a lot of stuff. Shaq has never stopped doing TV commercials since the 90s.

https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/19950219/2105837/gr...

I like the premise. However i think there's an angle about the death of religion. It happened before most people were ready to stop being religous. Energy went to sports teams, heretical charismatics and celebrities. I do worry that jake paul or mr beast or someone like that will become president. Oprah probably could have if she'd tried.

People read one person's opinion now almost as much if not more than people read the news.

I do think its on the nose about belief, people want to believe they want to be famous and can be famous and people feel less like they can be rich.

I also wonder if its just counter culture though and we're due another cycle. I find it upsetting that so many people aspire to be digital beggars.

I was in Vegas a few years back with friends. While walking the strip, notice this massive throng of kids all around us. I learned they were in town for the BTS concert.

I noticed this young girl, no older than 20, wearing a Pink Floyd "Dark side of the Moon" t-shirt, I asked her what she thought of the band.

To my abject dissatisfaction she responded "I bought the T-shirt because it looked cool".

In that moment I a GenExer, felt a profound generational dissonance.

I have a problem with artists doing commerce under the guise of art. I listen, I read, and I watch because I want to inhabit, even if just for a moment, the mind of another human. I want to feel what it’s like to be them, and in so doing, I want to better understand what it’s like to be me. But if I journey to the center of someone’s psyche and all I find there is a billboard for Pizza Hut, I’m turning around.

Kind of sounds like they have a bigger problem with what everyone else is doing when they listen to popular music. One can simply not listen to Lady Gaga; I've succeeded at that for decades.

There’s a very simple reason that artists don’t worry about selling out anymore (a phenomenon that was much more widespread than just the early 90s): the music industry finally finished their project of extracting nearly all of the money. These days, you’re more likely to have a hit because your song was in an advert than have your hit song used in an advert. Merchandising and the rest is pretty much your principal revenue stream.

I read and enjoyed this article but strongly disagree with the thesis.

Oreos are as important a part of life as anything else. People have feelings, memories, and good experiences with it. Just because a big company makes them instead of a small doesn't make that any less valid.

Hell, michaelangelo had to balance the art of his soul with what his patrons wanted.

And the same artist can make one spiritually deep, untouched by consumerism piece and also make a music video with Mario the next week. A healthy life and mix can include both.

> Here’s a story from 30 years ago that would make no sense today. > It’s 1992.

Yep, that's enough internet for me today.

I don't know about Lady Gaga's Oreos but the Selena Gomez ones are quite good. I bought them as a joke and ended up liking them.

What also changed is bands don’t sell records any more. You got to pay the bills somehow.

MCA wouldn't have dropped that line about not selling his songs for no tv ads if it wasn't something lots of his colleagues were doing. (And Mike D wouldn't have rhymed "commercial" with "commercial" for the same reason)

Stop eating oreos because they changed the formula, the filling can now be described as white paste product, and they want $4.99 for the "family" size now. I know this isn't what the article is about, but I'm sad by what Oreos have become.

Back then you didn’t want to sell out or be a poser. Now we are a society of posers.

I thought this was going to be some anecdote about how a rival (or maybe a group of rabid fans) found a bowl of Oreos backstage at a Lady Gaga concert and ate them all just to spite her.

One of the reasons why I knew the video game Mixtape was made by phonies, most of whom did not understand actual 90s culture and may not have been alive during the 90s, is because while the main characters adopt grunge aesthetics, they do not have that hyperawareness of authenticity (or lack thereof) that characterized being a teenager back then. Which is kind of fitting for a game made during an era where everything is boiled down to an "aesthetic". Being a kid in the 90s was a stance of mind, it wasn't just about what you wore or what bands you listened to. A lot of us thought we were Holden Caulfield back then, able to spot phonies and waging a quiet, desperate struggle against them for our own minds.

Eat the rich, not their Oreos.

The reason we got testy about selling out in the 80s and 90s was because so many people were doing it.

One of the modern problems, is that people can become [in]famous, without being rich.

Not good.

Needing bodyguards, and not being able to afford them, is a problem.

The article is very good; the headline is great. AI cannot (yet) do this.

One page in, and I still have no idea what the article is even meant to be about.

Colorful oreos are fun. A tray of these at a party would make people smile. I'm ok with it.

I misread the title and was confused and appalled for a few seconds sorting through the word being "Oreos" instead of "Orgasms" and the meaning that word has in Urban Dictionary.

> Why don’t the poor people vote to take all the money away from the rich people and redistribute it amongst themselves?

It's because the Powers That Be don't put it on the ballot. If you put "take 99% of the money from the 1000 richest billionaires (about $10 trillion, I think), and nobody has to pay any income taxes for the next four years" on some sort of national ballot, I think there's a very good chance that it would pass.

> The internet decapitated art criticism, elevating the YouTube commenter to the same level as the Pitchfork editor.

Part of that issue is people think "reviews" and "criticism" is one and the same. Ideally, a critic places the artwork in appropriate historical context and provides analysis. But most people just want Numbers or THumbs Ups.

As a huge fan of Fishbone, who did not make it big, despite being oh so close in the early 90ies... it'd be nice if there were a better balance. They've seemingly struggled over the years and kept going, but you get the sense that the guys don't have a lot of economic security that they might have with a few big hits.

Lady Gaga is also a playable character in the video game Fortnite, lol

[dead]

[dead]

Women drive 75-85% of discretionary spending in 2026. That's why advertising and products are they way they are.

I think the world has bigger problems than Lady Gaga's Oreos. That said, why not say "Stop Eating Oreos" altogether? Although they are certainly yummy, the sugar in them is a lot worse for people than Lady Gaga's association.