Cool or the Marketing of Cool
On one hand, if cool was first decided by teens, media would be forced to catch up. However, after marketing the cool that teens first created, it would have to lose it's status as being cool. Giving the teens what they want would seem too close to letting their programming show, making the attempt to market cool obsolete. The changing of cool would have to be another decision by teens. So it makes sense that cool was originally from teens. But to change cool, there has to be a collective group promoting it, or cool would not be able to appeal to the teen's need for affiliation. It seems unlikely that any group of teens could change something as large as the concept of cool without media.
On the other hand, if cool was decided by the media, then teens would have to feel the need to fit in. So whatever media says becomes the mainstream, as most teens view media. Media being the creators of cool would also make sense because now a large group of teens look towards media to find what is cool, and therefore fulfilling their need for affiliation. But if media did control cool, why would it have to constantly change? If they did control cool, they could maintain the same definition of cool because teens would always be looking towards media to see what was cool. However, this is not the case, because cool changes when teens get tired of media controlling their interests. Therefore teens must control cool. But what is the likelihood of a large group of teens all turning to the same outlet for rebellion making it the new cool thing without the marketing? Therefore media must be controlling cool. And the cycle continues.
I think teens really control cool, but handed over that control when they saw that media understood them. That is why media must work so hard to not lose their interest and constantly change with it. And when teens do listen to media, the marketing begins.
