11.16.01
What's Read and White and Blue All Over?
-- OR --
Promote-by-Numbers

"Hi Mawdy!" An off-key choir of voices erupted from the far corner of our little group at the distribution plant. The girls all had big crushes on Marty. The girls were mentally retarded. Marty wasn't. Marty drove the forklift around the distribution plant. He drove by several times a day. Thanks to his vociferous fan club, it didn't take long for all of us to know Marty's name. And it didn't take long for a red-faced Marty to realize he should take the long way around the warehouse.

It was my summer working for Harlequin, the romance novel publisher. Not only was this factory job a fountain of story fodder for years to come, it provided all of us (with the mental capacity to recognize it) a glimpse into the heart of America. Then again, maybe it was those Norman Rockwell drinking glasses we were packing to send out as complimentary gifts that inspired that All-American feeling.

I haven't thought about those damn glasses for a long time. And up until now, I hadn't considered what Norman Rockwell would have thought about his affiliation with Harlequin, America's favorite publisher of porn-lite. I wonder what he thinks of his latest posthumous partnership with The New York Times.

In order to perpetuate its rise in readership since the September 11th attacks, the paper has purchased licensing rights "to alter and use" 14 Rockwell images, as featured in an 11/8 Newsday.com article. The ads, deemed "tasteful and appropriate" by Norman Rockwell Estate Licensing Co. VP, Joel Platt, update Rockwell's works by replacing original painting-components with images including the Sept. 12 front page of The New York Times, the lower Manhattan skyline minus the Twin Towers and a school teacher revealing a map of Afghanistan to students.

"Since recent news events caused readership for the Times and many other newspapers to soar," notes the story, "papers have looked for ways to promote their coverage and lock in circulation gains without seeming to exploit tragic developments." Hey, so what if they exploit dead artists in the process?

"You have to be as careful as you possibly can not to take advantage of a situation," adds VP for marketing services at the Times, Alyce Myers. Here we go again. The Times is so tunnel-visioned about not taking advantage of one thing (September 11th attacks), that it's taking advantage of something else (Rockwell's artwork) in order to display its ability to not take advantage. Tricky, ain't it?

The question is, does the Times campaign really corrupt Rockwell's work? Ponder this: much of what we refer to as fine art was originally created for commercial purposes, or commissioned by benefactors. Perhaps Norman Rockwell's stuff is too pedestrian and accessible to qualify as fine art, but there's no question that most of it was created, at least partially, to sell Saturday Evening Post magazines and various other products, from Maxwell House coffee to Coca-Cola and Kellogg's cereal. So, to argue that the integrity of Rockwell's work is being compromised by the NY Times campaign for the sake of selling something is pointless. Much of his artwork was designed for commercial purposes in the first place.

Still, isn't it irreverent or presumptuous to manipulate these images for purposes other than initially intended by the man in the mirror with the pipe? If the Times truly aims to remind its readers of the feel-good Americana displayed in Rockwell's pictures, why alter them at all? Why not just co-opt them as is? The answer is simple: unadulterated Rockwell sells Americana; modified Rockwell sells newspapers under the guise of selling Americana.

Overall, I'm just disappointed in the mentality employed by marketers who would rather commandeer pre-existing artwork and culture than assist in creating something new. Just think of the countless artists whose careers have been boosted within their lifetimes thanks to publications like The New Yorker or Rolling Stone. For the amount of money the Times paid the Rockwell Estate, could they not have commissioned a living American artist, or group of living American artists, to create pieces that are truly timely? The Times could have been doing something extraordinary. Instead, the paper is feeding Americans the same ol' regurgitated pap. Call it comfort food for the newspaper buyer's wallet.

Benedict Arnold in a Belly Shirt
-- OR --
High Sugar Treason

Terry McAuliffe is miffed. The Democratic National Committee Chairman is not pleased with a former DNC ally who recently served as media consultant for faux-Republican Mike Bloomberg in his successful bid for NYC mayor. It appears that the same guy worked for Democrat Al Gore during his presidential campaign. Sometimes, loyalties end where royalties begin.

One would think a $108 million dollar contract would be enough to instill loyalty in anybody, even a record industry ho like Britney Spears. Then again, maybe that hefty sum is nothin' but chump change to the Billboard bim. Why else would she be guzzling Coke when she's under contract with Pepsi?

Yes, as featured in a 10/29 PR Week piece (Pepsi: Britney's got a Coke problem), Spears was photographed twice in October with Coca-Cola products; in Australia it was Coke, and in California it was Sunkist.

The official word from Pepsi is that it's no big thing. Still, an unnamed source interviewed for British rag, The Sun, was quoted as saying, "You don't expect to sign someone to a deal that big and then see them drinking a competitor's brand twice in a month," according to PR Week.

Man, this chick's got a lotta nerve. She's getting paid a grotesque amount of money to represent Pepsi. There's simply no reason why she should be cavorting with the fizzy foe. First of all, if Spears would rather be drinking Coke, she shouldn't have signed a deal with Pepsi. But, I guess we can't expect somebody who performs stripteases on national television and then claims to be a virgin to know much about integrity. Then again, could integrity be the strong-suit of anyone who awards her promotional prowess and (waffling) loyalty to the highest bidder?

Also mind-boggling is the fact that Spears is getting her hands on Coke products at all. It's not like she's the one who makes the 7-Eleven pit stop to stock up on road munchies; she's got a whole entourage to do grunt work like that. One would assume that her publicist or agent or beverage consultant would insist that she only drink Pepsi products (in public at least). And anyway, don't these big stars who sign spokes-deals get as much of the product as they want? Why would Spears need to purchase soda or other beverages at all? Hmmm…maybe special covert Coke forces are attempting to lure Britney to the other side with caramel-colored gifts.

Whatever the truth may be, The Lowbrow Lowdown Lackeys are convinced that Spears is using Coke for purely medicinal purposes. They know that douching with Coke after sex is a reliable form of birth control. And as we all know, she's gotta do anything she can to maintain that virgin persona of hers.

Please, Judge a Book by Its Cover
-- OR --
Does This Tolstoy Make Me Look Fat?

As a school kid, reading was something I did only when necessary. Even then, I often avoided it. By high school, I was a pro at reading circumvention. Rather than read a novel, I'd pick up a copy of the Cliff's Notes, the story synopses they sell at the bookstore as "study aids". I got so good at faking it that one time my English teacher actually requested that I read my paper on the symbolism of The Great Gatsby, which was entirely derived from the Cliff's Notes, aloud to the class. I'm not sure what made me feel more slimy: the fact that I hadn't read the book, or the fact that I was mistakenly characterized as a kiss-ass.

Apparently it's cool to be a teenage bookworm these days. According to an 11/9 Wall Street Journal feature (Look Who's Reading, by Pooja Bhatia), "bookstores across the country report jumps of 20% to 75% in young buyers over the past three years," and "the under-25 set is now buying books for leisure reading at three times the rate of the overall market."

It's not all about garnering good S.A.T. vocab scores either. There are a number of contributing factors, according to the "experts." Sociologist William Strauss calls the reading rush "a backlash against MTV culture." And bookseller Alison Reid opines in the article that "This generation has far more patience, is much more open to art and culture than any I've seen." Teenagers open to art and culture? Man, that's just what we need: an entire generation of highbrow poseurs. Isn't one Leelee Sobieski enough?

Needless to say, publishers and sellers are also playing a role in the book bonanza. Unconventional book signings, like the one HarperCollins held at a topless bar for its book Etiquette for Outlaws, are all the rage. Plus, bookstores are staying open later to accommodate young night owls.

This word-worshipping demographic has a tendency toward dementia, though. Take 24-year-old Kathleen Dodge who "showed up three hours early" to a reading by memoirist Dave Eggers. Not crazed enough for ya? Then consider 22-year-old Conor Reed; he "can recite complete chapters of 'Me Talk Pretty One Day,' the collection of David Sedaris essays about life as an expatriate in France." Jeez…and I used to think I was cool for memorizing all the lyrics to Alice's Restaurant and that Doors tune The Soft Parade.

Some traditional folks, particularly educators, turn up their noses to pop-lit hits like Fight Club and Confessions of a Shopaholic. Still, this page-turning trend seems heartening overall, doesn't it? It's nice to know that young people are actually actively reading, as opposed to zoning out in front of the TV or passively perusing online porn.

Well, maybe it's not as pure as we'd like to believe. As noted by the Journal story, "Many are making a fashion statement of sorts, carrying around tattered copies of 'in' books." For example, Garrett Kemps, a 23-year-old Web designer who "rarely reads more than 40 pages of any one volume," admits, "In this day and age, it's much more important to appear like you know something than it is to actually know something….Everybody's fronting, you know?" I can just picture this jerk reciting Shelley poems in front of the bathroom mirror before first dates, too.

So, in case any of us were worried that this jump in book sales is an actual indication of reading for reading's sake, I guess we can relax. I mean, c'mon, if people were so into reading as opposed to playing the part of one who reads, we'd see a boost in library attendance, not book purchases. Then again, the library doesn't offer a social scene, coffee bar, or chance to go home with the super-cute author. It also doesn't provide for a living room shelf filled with barely-opened novels. In other words, it's all about image. Hey, just the other day I heard a radio talk-show discussion about new book covers designed to appear well-used, dog-ears and all.

Perhaps more than image, it's about being a part of something, belonging, being accepted. The majority of bestsellers become such for various reasons, many of which indicate a desire to bond with others: because the movie just came out and everyone's reading the book; because the author has appeared on every possible radio and television talk show twice in the past month, so everyone's discussing the book; because Oprah says it's good, and every yenta wants to be like Oprah; the list goes on and on. The same herd mentality has even resulted in the banning of books. Behavior and attitudes such as these easily lend themselves to perpetuation through marketing.

Come to think of it, if this little exercise in page-flipping is all about gaining acceptance by others and looking cool, the young book buyers ought to skip the reading and go straight for the ultimate image enhancer for pseudo literati: author caricature tattoos.

Fire and Brimstoned
-- OR --
Rolling Rock of Gibraltar

If you'd rather get thicker 'round the middle than give up your traditional Sunday stout, you understand. If you've ever ordered a pitcher of your favorite ale and not bothered to grab the accompanying pint glasses from off the bar, you get it. If you've ever toured a brewery and genuflected as you entered the fermentation room, you catch my drift. That's right: you're religious about beer.

It's not a bad thing to be, either, unless you live in Utah. You see, just last month, according to a 10/27 Economist story (Utah's Holy War), the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (UDABC) decided that using religion in alcohol advertising is a sin…I mean, illegal. It seems like a given, right? After all, how often do ads for beer, wine or liquor employ religious references? Well, it so happens that Utah's Wasatch Beers had begun promoting its new brew in just such an enlightened manner right around the same time that the UDABC put forth its latest commandment. The new beer: Polygamy Porter. The Slogan: "Why Have Just One?" Yes, the suds sellers figured that "tapping into the local Mormon culture to promote its brew" would be a good idea.

Sure, Wasatch was only trying to have a little fun with its campaign, which suggested, "When enjoying our flavorful beverages, please procreate responsibly," and included radio ads featuring "Mormon missionaries encouraging people to baptize their taste buds." Hey, they could be onto something with this beer baptism thing. I'll admit: I'd probably still go to church if they served beer and pretzels instead of wine and tasteless wafers.

Despite the coincidental timing of its ruling, the UDABC insists that it "was not aimed at Wasatch Beers"; rather, the law is derived from the "good taste" ad code produced by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. But, once the holier-than-thou fuddy-duddies at the UDABC realized that the no-religion rule could harm sacramental and kosher wine advertisers, they scrapped it. As for Wasatch, the company decided against continuing the campaign, citing "bad taste" as the reason.

Of course the entire marketing scheme behind this sludge is in bad taste. That's what makes it so great. If launched just about anywhere else in the U.S. besides the home to many of the country's Mormons and polygamists, Polygamy Porter could have built up some small niche markets. I could see it selling in gourmet shops, gift shops or corner stores to guys looking for cheesy bachelor party presents, for instance. The problem is, Wasatch packaged its beer in stereotypically trite wrappings, and then attempted to sell it to the very community it so overtly jeered. Something tells me that an Outback Steakhouse chain in Australia would be about as successful.

In the end, I'm just glad that the UDABC decided to renege on its no-religion ad rule. I mean, just think of the endless possibilities for customized religious brews: