In this column, Walker is sharing a study that she and two of her students have conducted to determine聽whether it is possible for a person of the Generation 鈥淴鈥� to develop a TikTok strategy or, algorithms willing, a following, without be called a 鈥淏oomer鈥� by other participants.
Introduction
In an effort to promote Walker et al鈥檚 essay collection Processed Meats: Essays on Food, Flesh, and Navigating Disaster, which was released in March 2021 in the middle of a pandemic, Walker undertook an unconventional approach. While promotional plans had including serving charcuterie at various book-selling events, Covid 19 et al., prohibited the leaving of house, the sharing of food, and the selling of books. In 2022, Walker endeavored to produce several short videos and upload them to a new social media platform with the help of Sather et al. whose experience, attention span, and training prepared them especially for this work.
Methods
Study Design: TikTok was selected as the platform for a dyad of reasons. 1. Subscribers to older model social media conglomerates like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram had been previously inundated with attempts by Walker et al to entice them to read her collection, contaminating those platforms. 2. TikTok affords its users a companionable hashtag system, where different 鈥渢iks鈥� can be sorted by 鈥渢oks.鈥� Thus, #Booktok proved the fecund yet unsullied ground by which we could conduct our experiment.
Experiment One
Sather et al鈥檚 paternal parent is a filmmaker which is distinctly not the kind of video Walker intended to produce. Sather et al had both made TikToks with varying degrees of 鈥渓ikes鈥� or 鈥渇ollowers,鈥� making them the ideal cinematographers for this study. Materials used included an iPhone 11, a frying pan, a refrigerator, boneless, skinless, chicken thighs, bacon, square-shaped Tupperware, and a copy of Processed Meats: Essays on Food, Flesh, and Navigating Disaster. While each videos strategies differed slightly, we adopted the 鈥榗ommon鈥� form of video collecting, pointing the camera at the subject and engaging the 鈥榬ecord鈥� electronic button.
In preparation for the procedure, Walker first decided what would cook for dinner. Second, she found a passage in "Processed Meats: Essays on Food, Flesh, and Navigating Disaster" (the title of send book she has currently converted to Macro FN 32) that paralleled that particular meal.
Limited resources, in both imagination and product, constrained the choice of specimen primarily to chicken. Cinematographer Sather positioned the camera implement of his handheld device toward Walker as she unwrapped boneless, skinless chicken thighs from the Foster Farms cage-free brand of chicken. In an attempt to preserve the integrity of the process, chickens raised in crowded but uncaged growth vessels determined our purchasing options. Once the chicken has been removed from the packaging and placed between layers of parchment paper, concern for the welfare of the chicken no longer limited the parameters of the experiment. In order for the chicken thighs to 鈥榗ook鈥� evenly, thighs must be pounded flat. Sather et al recorded the flattening by aiming the camera implement from the handheld device toward Walker鈥檚 cutting board and rolling pin, thereby recording the process of pounding the meat into squares. Walker then laid the chicken thighs in an admixture of flour, paprika, celery salt, and garlic powder, covering both sides evenly, then lying flat in a beaten egg preparation, then again laid into bread crumb coating, designated 鈥淧anko.鈥�
Here, the visual recording was halted and the audio recording commenced. Sather et al attempted to instruct Walker on the technological steps to implement an audio recording but gave up and recorded Walker as Walker read "Processed Meats: Essays on Food, Flesh, and Navigation Disaster".
Results: 14 likes; 87 views
Experiment two
This procedure began as with Experiment one, with the packaging of the specimen: Walker unwrapping butter as she prepared potatoes for Thanksgiving. Given time limitations, Sather et al. cooked, read, promoted Macro FN 32 and conducted recordings simultaneously. It should be noted the Joel Robuchon suggests one pound of butter for two pounds of potatoes but not even Walker has been able to repeat this experiment without severe damage to both the lab, the specimen, and the personnel. However, these potatoes, peeled, quarter pound buttered, quarter cup milked, and whipped in the culinary centrifuge, turned out as expected: buttery but not disastrously so. The results of the promotional aspect of the experiment are less certain.
Results: 11 likes; 198 views
Experiment three
For the third experiment, due again to time limitations and the labile conditions of the specimen, Sather et al recorded cleaning the refrigerator instead of focusing on a singular aspect of a specimen such as chicken or butter as in experiment one and two. The cinematographer recorded Walker removing squares of Tupperware, petri dishes of microorganisms, and hazardous biologic material from the specimen for a 30 second interval and then recorded restocking the specimen with material inoculated with spores and microbes in conditions not yet catalyzed for spontaneous growth.
Walker, still restricted in audio capacity, required Sather et all to adjust the technology for Walker to read from Macro FN 32:
Because the specimen chicken has been well-studied herein and bone-in chicken may disturb our reader, the editors request Experiment four only be charted and cited. However, please note, Sather et al. coats the chicken in paprika, celery salt, and garlic powder in the data-collection.
Results: 10 likes; 137 views
Experiment five
A final experiment, henceforth referred to as Experiment five, produced outlying results. While the primary visual record is of the specimen frying in a pan, inferences may be made that specimen bacon, while equally subjected to unseemly living and death situations, is easier to render digestible because of its exuberant effect on the taste buds, even as perceived through a visual medium. The data here thus outlie our previous experiments but are noted for significance. Please note that while the inputs trend higher, the ratio remains the same. Sather et al include these data for reference only.
Results: 25 likes; 239 views
In conclusion, it shall be inferred that TikTok, while a forum designed for a generation well-practiced in giving short-term attention and incessant dopamine infusions, other generations may learn to adapt and avoid being called 鈥淏oomers鈥� if collaboration with the generation Z may be forced. However, we must conclude that becoming a TikTok sensation is not likely. These experiments must be repeated for results to prove valid. Future study is indicated in the specimens of pomegranate, beef tongue, and beef Jell-o. The larger conclusions may be even less promising. Self-promotion is an embarrassing sport and the promise of finding book readers in a TikTok world is ever shrinking. And yet, the show must go on.
Notes
Walker neglected to push 鈥減ost鈥� on Experiment one so Experiment one should now be imagined as Experiment five. Walker also included two additional hashtags: #food and #chickentenders which garnered, we believe, more views. It also drew three comments: 鈥淚s this a book? It seems like a book.鈥� And 鈥淭hanks for the dating advice, coach鈥� and 鈥淭his seems like an audiobook.鈥� And 鈥淵ou should write a book.鈥� These comments seem linked to the fact that Walker neglected to record an image of "Processed Meats: Essays on Food, Flesh, and Navigating Disaster". Walker鈥檚 Macro usage has been suspended until further investigations can be conducted.
Chart for Experiment One updated as of 12/17/2022, 11:05 a.m.:
Results: 29 likes; 743 views