Ikea Party

[D]

Feel free to discuss GENERAL ideas about the Ikea Cocktail party here... But as usual, don't post details, since we do like to keep these events secret. :)

[Agent Tuttle]

I'm glad to finally hear what your thoughts are on this one. I respect and appreciate them and there are a few points I'd like to make:

1. The powers that be have renamed this forum The Urban Prankster, so if it's a prank, it's a prank. Ultimately the audience is the judge based on how they perceive it and I'm sure every mission has been seen as a prank by a percentage of viewers.

2. "Why limit it to inside an Ikea..." I can't think of a better contextual mission in that Ikea has totally taken the living space out of context by making it into a store and we would be putting it back into context by turning it back into a living space. It's a triple twist. Nearly everything needed is already there. We can do it without bringing anything if we wish.

3. I have no problem with a limited audience. The only people who see any mission are the ones lucky enough to be in the vicinity. Ikea is very crowded on the weekends and the audience is a constant flow.

4. We can be as non-obnoxious as we wish so as to not make a huge security-callin' disruption. I always saw it as a slow build-up of agent shoppers turning into party-goers not unlike the way the freeze progressed like falling dominoes and break up in the same manner.

5. It's a business. Abercrombie is a business and IE called bullsh*t on their shirtless model by all shopping shirtless and were asked to leave. Nothing but a prank. But the reason I liked it is because it was a catch 22. They want to attract customers with this shirtless model, but customers should do as they say, not as they do. Ikea herds us like sheep through their maze with arrows telling us where to go showing us how their products should be used. I'd like to think that people like us who go against that flow of traffic would show how their ideas can backfire. This is the basis of why I think the idea fits our forum and why businesses who advertise with invasive tactics, tell us what to buy, what to do, what is cool, not to tivo past the commercials are fair game.

6. And lastly. The sheer volume of interest in this mission means that there is at least a potential of a good idea. We have all been guilty of "playing house" there at one point or another.

Just my 55 cents. Thanks for reading.

[Agent A]

Interesting thoughts.

I will distill my thoughts on this a little longer

[Agent A]

I digress:

1) 3rd street promenade is a social gathering point with businesses. We are hosting our party INSIDE ikea, not next to Ikea. Plus, if we are worrying ourselves with Ikea's policies and if the customers are going to or not going to make purchases, I think we've lost our goal for the guerilla theatre in the first place.

2) http://urbanprankster.com/2008/06/ikea-fancy-dress-dinner-party/

3) As much as we live in a world of video, are we playing for the video audience or the participating audience. If you are thinking about this mission as a social gathering, every mission is a chance to meet one another and enjoy each other's company. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't see how this is separate from any other mission for social reasons.

The approaches that worry me the most about this mission are simple:
Small, limited audience and sticky management.

[D]

Sorry to keep attacking this mission, but I think there is something good at the heart of this mission that needs to be refined...

I have a couple problems with the current mission, in addition to the fact that this it's already been done. One of which is that when I picture this mission in my head, I don't see anyone in our audience (people around us) really caring. We're just a small group of people hanging out in an Ikea... You can tell from the video that the other group that already did this mission got that kind of response. I don't think we'd get anything near the kind of response we got for the Crosswalk Countdown.

If this mission is big enough to draw the kind of attention we want, then we're going to get in trouble with Management/Security/Police. Plus, we'd basically be hijacking one of their displays, meaning anything that they'd normally sell there, they wouldn't. I can't imagine they'd take kindly to that.

So, to summarize, here are my problems:
1) Been done before/Not original
2) Either it is a failure OR we get kicked out. The middle ground is hard, if not impossible to find.
3) We could harm sales for Ikea.

Solution: Location, location, location...

[Agent Tuttle]

1) It is QUITE different from the other Ikea missions AND many similar missions have been done. Such as the freeeeeeeze.
2) I call BS. The crosswalk sounded weak to me at first, but I went and the energy made it awesome. Keep an open mind. Missions are what we make of them.
3) Please refer to my long reply about corporations as well as Agent A's point about not being concerned about their business model. (I'm paraphrasing of course.)

Have you not been paying attention? Abercrombie, starbucks, best buy, ikea, etc etc businesses affected by IE.

Bottom line. WHEN it is REFINED and when it HAPPENS, it is up to YOU if you want to participate or not. Until then I am waiting to hear better mission ideas.

[D]

1) The reason I say it was done before was not because missions have happened in Ikea before, but because a group of people had a house party in an Ikea. http://urbanprankster.com/2008/06/ikea-fancy-dress-dinner-party/ Not sure what part of our mission is different than that video.
2) The reason I say this is based on two things:
a) My experience with previous missions with small amounts of people.
b) The video of the previously done Ikea house party mission.
3) I'm not concerned with missions involving corporations. What I am concerned with is missions that HARM the business of corporations. Filling a part of their store would do that. The four missions you mentioned did NOT harm business.

Actually, the bottom line that I see is whether this mission gets to a point where it is supported by GLA and becomes sanctioned as a GLA mission.

[Agent Tuttle]

Agents were asked to leave Abercrombie. Starbucks is small and missions there are invasive. The Ikea idea is quite innocuous.

[D]

2) Yes, but we want to minimize that.

3) First of all, I don't think the so called "leaders" have said anything about being opposed to the mission... Just trying to catch and eliminate potential flaws during the planning stages. In fact, I was the one that created this thread!

As far as I can tell, no one has condemned the mission or even thought about doing that. No one can argue that this mission has a reasonable amount of support from the group, which is why it's getting the attention that it is. You mentioned that you've done stuff like this before, so you know that things like this often need to be analyzed on a microscopic scale and Devils Advocate NEEDS to be played. For example, the Crosswalk Countdown was re-planned a total of 6 times before the day. AND we had 2 backups incase something changed and we needed to quickly switch plans.

Yes, Agent A does control the mailing list, but I know from first hand experience that he has made sacrifices in previous missions to institute the will of the group. He understands the value of democracy and I can guarantee you that he will respect the will of the group.

[D]

1) The reason I didn't bring this up earlier is because I didn't find out about it until recently... As far as I can tell, rethinking the location would fix this. Since we're trying to establish ourselves as the LA group, why wouldn't we do this in a place typical of LA? The beach, picnic tables on a pier...

2) My point is that if it's a small group, the mission is ignored; if it's a huge group, the mission is shut down before it begins.

3) I know... That's why I said it needs to get the support of GLA... Meaning the group.

GLA is an organization that is constantly walking the line between fun improv theater group and that group that police and private businesses are always on the lookout for.

I agree that you can do missions without GLA sanction, but if this is going to be a GLA mission, it needs to get the approval of it's members.

I've been part of this group for a while now and known Agent A from the beginning. His philosophy here isn't that he runs the group, but that the group runs itself. All he does is provide guidance and suggestions. The group decides what missions it is willing to support, which is why he said he is bothered by this mission, not that he is canceling it.

[Ben]

Ok folks, why is this starting to get a little heated?
It's better to keep talking about and developing the idea itself, rather than about why some think it should or shouldn't be done. Yeah a little talk over the validity of an idea makes sense, but don't turn the whole conversation into it.
And don't turn it into a "my idea is better than yours" argument. There's no need for that. This is about sharing ideas and working together to figure them out.

[D]

Spurious: We did the freeze in our infancy. I can't see us ever doing one again. I think if we want this group to grow into something with IE level cred, we need to be original with our ideas. If anyone even thinks we are using other people's ideas it makes us look like followers. No one has suggested that this mission be canceled. All I hear is that the location should be rethought...

Hypocritical: We aren't Improv Everywhere, so I don't think we should base the criteria for our missions on their previous missions. They've done a couple missions that I KNOW GLA would not stand for. And yes, I do believe that filling up a section of a store focused entirely on impulse buying would harm their business. And yes, I do believe we should take that into account when planning missions.

Leaders: I know that at least 2 people made it clear at the last meeting that they wanted to be part of planning future missions. Those people are now attending the so called "leaders" meetings. By the way: Being a leader involves presenting ideas to the group and the group deciding whether it is something GLA should support or not.

[Agent A]

This is not a turf war.

This conversation is only destructive.

Either we stop this bickering and move to the planning phases of this mission, we drop the mission entirely or it becomes a separate mission in a separate group entirely.

Frankly, I'm offended that this topic has turned from a discussion about the mission to a discussion about gla. Take a deep breath.

And the "leaders" are not an exclusive, limited group. It's comprised of agents who give up their time to do the leg work in planning and pulling off these missions. I've never once limited the role and have no plans to limit it either. So be a leader or don't... plain and simple.

Finally, if the mission isn't gla sanctioned, that doesn't mean you can't plan the mission and pull it off... However, this being said, the mission is has not been decided upon either way...